T A KAMALUDDIN Vs. T N ABDUL SALIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in both these revision petitions is the accused in Crime No. 708 of 1971 of the Cantonment Police Station, Trivandrum. As against the petitioner and another person the 1st respondent laid a complaint before the District Magistrate, Trivandrum, on 22-9-1971, alleging offences under S.406, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C. in respect of K.L.V. 1303, an Ambassador Sedan car. The allegation was that the 3rd respondent, S. Vasumathi, registered owner, sold the car on 19-12-1968 to one Remla Beevi, who was the mother inlaw of the petitioner and sister of the 1st respondent, that she, in her turn, sold the same on 2-6-1969 to the 1st respondent and that Remla Beevi and the 1st respondent jointly entrusted the car to the petitioner on 15-7-1969 for his use with the direction by the 1st respondent that he should return the car to him whenever called upon to do so. But in spite of the demand, it is alleged that the petitioner did not return the car. Hence the 1st respondent filed the complaint alleging offences under various counts.

(2.) The District Magistrate sent the complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police for investigation under S.155(3) Cr. P.C. During the investigation, the car was taken into custody from a workshop where it was kept by the petitioner for some repairs. On production of the car before the learned Magistrate and on hearing both sides it was directed that the car should be entrusted with a respectable third party on his furnishing a bond. The learned Magistrate was purported to have disposed of the property under S.516A Crl. P.C. It is against that order that the first of these revision petition is filed. In pursuance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate a list of names with whom the car was to be entrusted was furnished by both sides. The learned Magistrate chose Shri. S. Raghavan, one among the persons of the list furnished by the 1st respondent and he Was directed by the learned Magistrate to take the car into custody on furnishing a bond for Rs. 20,000/-. It is against that order that the Second of these revision petitions is filed.

(3.) Now the dispute is straightened as it is only between the petitioner on the one side and the 1st respondent on the other. Vasumathi, the registered owner of the car, who is subsequently impleaded as the 3rd respondent in Crl. R.P. No. 428 of 1971, disclaimed her right to the car as she admitted that the car had already been sold to Remla Beevi who is the sister of the 1st respondent and the mother inlaw of the petitioner. Therefore the entrustment of the car to Vasumathi does not arise for consideration. In this regard reference is made to a decision of this Court in Sahdevan v. Sudhakaran ( 1970 KLT 782 ). That was a case disposed of under S.517(1) Cr. P.C. "any person claiming to be entitled to possession, which occurs in S.517(1) Cr. P.C., was interpreted in respect of a motor vehicle that the person who is entitled to be in possession of it shall be the person in whose name the registration certificate of the motor vehicle stood. That decision does not apply to the facts of the present case. First of all, that decision was rendered under the provisions of S.517(1) Cr.P.C. Secondly, there the dispute was between the registered holder of a vehicle on the one side and the third party on the other and as between them it would be justified to hold that the registered owner shall be the person who is entitled to be in possession of the property. But in this case there are two difficulties in following the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision. Firstly, the registered holder did not claim the property as her own. She had stated categorically that the car had already been sold to one Remla Beevi. So Vasumathi was not competent to come forward to claim the car as the registered owner. The possession of the car, in spite of the transfer in violation of the Rules, is not with ' Vasumathi. S.517(1) comes into operation only on conclusion of an enquiry or trial in a criminal court. S.516A enables the courts to pass orders for the custody or disposal of property during an enquiry or trial. It is admitted that the police did not so far file a charge against the petitioner. The case is still under investigation. In that case, the proper Section to be applied for the disposal of the car is not S.516A Cr. P.C. but it is under S.523(1) Cr. P.C.