ABDUL REHMANKUTTY Vs. EAPEN VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected revision petitions arising from the order of the District Magistrate of Kottayam in Criminal Appeal 14 of 1959. The appellant therein has filed Criminal Revision Petition 228/59 and the respondent has filed Criminal Revision Petition 176/59.

(2.) This case had a long and chequered career. The facts leading up to this petition may shortly be stated as follows:- The revision petitioner in Crl. R. P. 228/59 was the accused in a criminal complaint on the file of the Pathanamthitta Stationary First Class Magistrate. He was the owner of a motor car T.R.V. 6225 which he had sold to the complainant in that case under a hire purchase agreement. As default was committed in the payment of the instalments, the petitioner seized the car under the terms of the agreement. On the seizure of a car a criminal complaint was launched against the petitioner for the offence of cheating. Under the orders of the court, the car was taken into custody from the petitioner and eventually entrusted to the respondent in Crl. R.P. 228/1959 under a security bond Ext A dated 30-1-50. No case was made out against the petitioner and so he was discharged on 25-1-51 and it was ordered that the car be returned to the petitioner.

(3.) On the same date the petitioner presented a petition Ext. C for directing the restoration of the car. The summons was duly served on the respondent, but he did not produce the car till 13-10-51. When it was produced the petitioner filed objections stating that the car was not in proper condition, that several parts were missing and that under the terms of Ext. A, the respondent is bound to make good the value of the car and that he is also liable for penalty for breach of the terms of the security bond Ext A. Upon enquiry the court found that the car that was produced was not in the condition in which it was entrusted to the respondent and that certain parts of the car were missing. By its order dated 17-11-51, the court directed the petitioner to take possession of the car and also called upon the respondent to execute a fresh bond for Rs.1500/- to indemnify the loss caused, pending assessment of what the actual loss would be. Subject to this Hew bond the original bond Ext. A was cancelled. The matter was taken up in appeal before the District Magistrate, Quilon. The order of the lower court directing the petitioner to take possession of the car was set aside and the case was sent back to the Magistrate for a de novo enquiry regarding the liability of the respondent.