JACOB Vs. JAYABHARAT CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions arise for consideration in these criminal revisions. They are: (1) Whether a third party to the proceedings, who claims interim custody of a vehicle seized, can challenge in revision under S.397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure an order passed under S.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 rejecting his claim and giving custody to another claimant and (2) in granting interim custody of a motor vehicle seized, what are the considerations that should weigh with the Court, can anybody other than the registered owner be given custody

(2.) The short facts of the case are: A case was registered by the Ernakulam Town North Police Station for the theft of a bus K. L. R.4150 on the complaint of the petitioner in Crl. R. P. 211 of 1983. The vehicle was seized and produced before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court I, Ernakulam on 3-5-1982. (Though in the order the date is given as 3-5-1982, it can only be 3-5-1983). The petitioner in Crl. R. P. 211 of 1983, the petitioner in Crl. R. P. 227 of 1983, who is the first respondent in Crl. R. P. 211 of 1983 and the 2nd respondent in Crl. R. P. 211 of 1983 filed claim petitions before the court for interim custody of the vehicle. The petitioner in Crl. R. P. 211 of 1983 is the complainant. The petitioner in Crl.R.P. 227 of 1983 is the financier who claims to have obtained a letter from the registered owner relinquishing all rights in the vehicle in their favour. The 2nd respondent in Crl.R.P. 211 of 1983, who is the first respondent in Crl.R.P. 227 of 1983, according to her, was in custody of the vehicle and she produced the same before the Police. The learned Magistrate disposed of the three claim petitions by a common order. Before the Court, the Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that, according to the Police, no offence of theft was committed and they were filing a refer report. By the order, the learned Magistrate entrusted custody of the vehicle to the 2nd respondent in Crl.R.P. 211 of 1983, Smt. Annie Olivaro. In the order it is stated as follows in Para.9:

(3.) In Amer Nath v. State of Haryana ( AIR 1977 SC 2185 ) the Supreme Court has held: