ABDUL JABBAR Vs. KHALEEL AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 8-7-1985 passed by the J.M.F.C., Kolar, under Sec. 457 Cr.P.C. in Cr. No. 24/85 entrusting interim custody of the vehicle bearing No. MEG 7676 to the 1st respondent and as confirmed by the Sessions Judge by his order dated 28-10-1985, in Cr.R.P. No. 46 of 1985, on his file.

(2.) The 1st respondent who claims to have entered into a contract of purchase of the vehicle in question from the petitioner filed a complaint before the Magistrate alleging commission of the offence of theft of the vehicle from his possession. The learned Magistrate, without cognizance of the offence, referred the complaint to the police as provided under S. 156 (3) Cr.P C. for investigation of the same. On receipt of the complaint, the Mulbagil Police registered a case in Cr. No. 13/85 and took up investigation of the case. During investigation, the police seized the vehicle when it was found parked in the compound of the premises belonging to one Ramakrishna Reddy of Kirakere in Hindupur Taluk and accordingly made a report to the court. The police, after investigation of the case, concluded that it was a dispute of civil nature and accordingly submitted a 'B' summary report. The learned Magistrate, who had in the meanwhile heard arguments on the application made for interim custody, came to the conclusion that although the R.C. was produced by the petitioned herein, Form No. 29 produced by the complainant showed that the vehicle had been transferred to the complainant and the complainant being in possession of the vehicle, the vehicle has to be entrusted to his custody. In that view, the Magistrate rejected the application made by the petitioner and made the order directing release of the vehicle in question in favour of the complainant on his executing an indemnity bond in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the court on certain conditions. Being aggrieved, when the petitioner approached the Sessions Judge in revision, the Sessions Judge having confirmed the order made by the Magistrate, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. Abdul Wazid Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the petitioner being the registered owner, it was proper to entrust the custody of the vehicle to him and not to the complainant who claims to have purchased the vehicle and the order passed by the court below being not in conformity with the decision of this Court is liable to be set aside. Mr. Bhagawan, learned counsel for respondent-1, however tried to support the order as passed by the courts below.