V PARAKASHAN Vs. K P PANKAJAKSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the registered owner of Bus No. KLN 97 plying between Tellicherry and Chendayad. Route permit is also in his name. The bus got involved in Crime No.351 of 1984 of the Tellicherry Police Station. First respondent was the accused therein and the case was registered at the instance of the petitioner. The allegation was that the first respondent drove bus KLN 97 rashly in order to dash it against the petitioner's car in an attempt to murder him. The bus was seized by the police and produced before Court. Both the petitioner and the first respondent applied, under S.451 of the Criminal P.C., for interim custody of the bus. The Magistrate rejected both the applications on the ground that the Sessions Judge alone could order release of the bus inasmuch as the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Session. Both of them applied before the Sessions Judge, Tellicherry. The Sessions Judge ordered interim custody of the bus to be given to the first respondent. The petitioner filed Cri. M.C. No.853/84 before this Court. The order of the Sessions Judge was quashed, holding that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction. The Magistrate was directed to consider the applications expeditiously. The Magistrate considered the applications again and ordered interim custody of the bus to be given to the first respondent. The present petition under S.482 of the Criminal P.C. filed by the petitioner is to quash that order. Second respondent is the State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor.

(2.) Some facts are necessary to appreciate the rival contentions. An order under S.451 is only for an interim custody pending enquiry or trial. Final orders after conclusion of the trial will have to be passed under S.452. When there are rival claims for interim custody, the Court may have to consider who is better entitled to interim custody.

(3.) The petitioner is the registered owner of the bus. Route permit also is in his name. First respondent also claims to be the owner of the bus. He says that there was an agreement of sale followed by a sale in his favour on 1-4-1984. He claims to have obtained possession also. The petitioner denies these allegations. But even the petitioner admits that there was an agreement to sell the bus to the first respondent. That was followed by a joint application by the petitioner and the first respondent to the Regional Transport Authority for transferring the permit in favour of the first respondent. This fact is also admitted. The contention of the petitioner is that thereafter the first respondent wriggled out the agreement and therefore, on 22-8-1984, he requested the R.T.A. to keep the matter pending, since there was no concluded contract.