J.P. ANITHA BABU RAO Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein claims to be the registered owner of a very old Ambassador car No. KL.M- 3553, and she is the defacto-complainant in Crime No.200/1995 of the Nadakkavu Police Station, Kozhikode. She filed complaint alleging theft of the vehicle. During investigation, the said vehicle was seized by the Police. Pending the proceedings, the revision petitioner filed an application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kozhikode, for interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C., 1973 A rival claim was also made by one Praseeda and another person, under Section 451 Cr.P.C., 1973

(2.) After hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate granted interim custody of the said vehicle to the revision petitioner herein, as the registered owner, under Section 451 Cr.P.C., 1973 After investigation, the Police submitted a report in court, referring the crime. Thereafter, the said Praseeda and the other person filed an application in the Trial Court under Section 452 Cr.P.C , 1973for getting custody of the vehicle. In the said proceeding, the learned Magistrate directed the revision petitioner to produce the vehicle in Court, for taking final decision under Section 452 Cr.P.C., 1973 The revision petitioner entered appearance before the learned Magistrate and submitted her inability to produce the vehicle, as it was not in a fit condition to be brought to court, and she sought some time to produce it after necessary repair. Of course, she is bound to produce it in Court in terms of the bond executed by her. When the revision petitioner failed to produce the vehicle in spite of repeated opportunities, the learned Magistrate initiated proceedings against her under Section 446 Cr.P.C,, 1973 and MC No.46/1998 was registered. After giving show cause notice and after hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate passed orders imposing the entire bond amount of Rs. 1 lakh as penalty. Aggrieved by the said order dated 19.05.1998, the revision petitioner approached the Court of Session, Kozhikode with Crl.Appeal No.194/1998 under Section 449 Cr.P.C., 1973 The learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode dismissed the said appeal on 16.12.2002. Now, the registered owner of the vehicle who obtained the car under Section 451 Cr.P.C,, 1973 has come up in revision, challenging the order of the Courts below in the proceedings initiated under Section 446 Cr.P.C., 1973

(3.) On hearing both sides and on a perusal of the materials, I find that the petitioner has a genuine grievance. It is revealed by the orders of the trial court that she had once produced the car in the Court in response to the notice, but it was not in a good mechanical condition. It was being repaired at the workshop at that time, and the car was produced from the workshop. The car had so many repair works and she could not produce it in Court promptly only because it was not in a good mechanical condition. Anyway, she produced it some how in Court, and offered to produce it in good condition after repair. For the said 1978 model car which will be now worth nothing practically, the revision petitioner will lose 1 lakh, if the order of the courts below is confirmed. Anyway, the application filed by Praseeda and another under Section 451 Cr.P.C , 1973is still pending before the Trial Court.