SAHADEVAN Vs. SUDHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition by the respondent before the Sub Magistrate, Haripad, who passed the order dated 17 12 69 directing the motor cycle KLT 7464 to be handed over to the opposite party, who is the 1st respondent in this revision petition, on the basis that the 1st respondent claimed to be in possession of the motor cycle.

(2.) The motor cycle in question was seized by the police on 16-8-69 at 2 p. m. on the basis of a scene mahazar and in respect of which one Mohammed Kunju was prosecuted and convicted under S.279 and 337 I.P.C. for rash and negligent driving causing injury to a pedestrian and under S.3 of the Motor Vehicles Act being found to be in possession of the motor cycle in question without a valid licence. The incident was on 15 8 69. During the pendency of the trial, the motor cycle was entrusted to the 1st respondent and another person on their executing a kachit dated 28 10 69 undertaking by them to produce the motor cycle as and when they were called upon by the court to do so. After the accused was convicted, the direction as to the person to whom the motor cycle was to be handed over finally came up for consideration before the lower court under S.517 of the Cr. P. C. S.517(1) of the Code runs as follows:

(3.) It is relevant in this regard to point out that the question as to the person from whom the property was seized by the police and about which the case was finally disposed of depends upon the person claiming to be entitled to possession of the property. 'Claiming to be entitled to possession of the property' is a common requisite both to S.517 and S.523 Cr. P. C. In interpreting this aspect of the case in the disposal of the property after the conviction or acquittal or otherwise termination of the case came up for consideration in very many decisions of this court as well as other High Courts in our country.