JAGADEESAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed, under Sec.482 CrlPC, the order d 2-1-1978 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (II Court) Mangalore, Dak-shina Kannada, in directing handing over possession of a motor cap (Premier Padmini) bearing registration No MEN 399 to respondent-2, is challenged.

(2.) This petition has been filed on 4-1-78. Sri Mohandas N.Hegde, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to argue the petition as if it is a criminal revision petition because, it has been filed under Sec 482 of the CrlPC due, to misconception of the effect of Sec.397((2) of the CrlPC, 'but that misconception has begin recently removed as the law came to be settled by the Supreme Court in December 1977. The permission is granted and this petition is heard and disposed of in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(3.) The undisputed facts are that respondent-2 Mary Georgel is the wife of C.X.George (now deceased). C.X.George entered in to a hire purchase agreement with the petitioner finance company and secured possession of the car aforementioned as per the terms of the, agreement. He went on abiding by the terms. It may be stated that the registration certificate of the vehicle was made out in the name of C.X.George. Even after his death, respondent made payments towards the instalments and the amounts so paid by her totalled to about Rs.6,000. Later on one C. X.Alexander, who is a brother of late C.X.George and who is not a party to this petition, filed, a complaint before the police that the said car had been stolen by about 5.00 p.m. on 4-12-77 when the same had been parked and when he and the members of his family had gone to Church. In the meantime the petitioner intimated the Regional Transport Officer that as there was deffault in regard to payment of instalments as per the hire purchase agreement the Company had secured possession of the car and, as the certificate of registration was not available to them-the same being with the registered owner and the registered owner had not returned it to them-the necessary endorsements in the certificate of registration be cancelled and a duplicate be issued in their name. They produced the car before the police and the police seized it .When the car was produced before the Magistrate, the petitioner, respondent-2 and Alexander filed applications purporting to be under Secs.451 and 457 of the CrlPC claiming that each one of them was entitled to the possession of the car and it may be handed over to their possession. The learned Magistrate after considering the, said application produced the impugned order and he has styled it - as an order made under Sec.451 of the CrlPC. It may be mentioned at this stage itself that the Magistrate has, in fact, exercised his powers under Sec.457 of the CrlPC and appears to have wrongly thought that he had passed the order under Sec.451 of the, Criminal Procedure Code.