LAWS(KER)-1961-8-46

PARAMESWARA KURUP Vs. PARVATHY AMMA

Decided On August 12, 1961
PARAMESWARA KURUP Appellant
V/S
PARVATHY AMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions arise out of orders passed by the District Magistrate of Trivandrum in three connected appeals, appeal Nos. 99, 100 and 101 of 1960 filed under S.520 of the Criminal Procedure Code against the order passed by the City Second Class Magistrate of Trivandrum forfeiting the bond executed by the respondents in these revision petitions.

(2.) The 4th accused in C. C. 160/56 on the file of the City Second Class Magistrate of Trivandrum is the revision petitioner in all these petitions. A criminal complaint was filed against him and some others for having committed theft of a car T. C. Q. 1678. The car belonged to the 4th accused, but he had sold it to the complainant on hire purchase agreement. In default of payment the 4th accused took possession of the car and a complaint was filed against him for theft of the car. Pending the case the police seized the car and produced it in court. The court entrusted the car to the complainant and two sureties (who are the respondents in these revision petitions) on their executing a bond for Rs. 2000/-besides the value of the car, namely, Rs. 3,500/- and for its custody and production when required by the court during the course of the trial and agreeing that in default the value of the car with the penalty would be paid.

(3.) The case was then transferred to the file of the Corporation First Class Magistrate, Trivandrum, who after trial acquitted the accused. Pending the criminal complaint the petitioner here had filed a civil suit O. S. 234/55 before the Sub Court of Trivandrum against the complainant for recovery of money under the hire purchase agreement and had applied for attachment before judgment of the car which was in the custody of the court. Attachment was ordered and intimation was given to the Magistrate regarding the attachment. In acquitting the accused the learned Magistrate, therefore, passed orders that the complainant to whom the car had been entrusted will continue to have the custody of the car till the matter was finally decided by the civil suit.