M.KARUPPASAMY Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner/A3 has filed the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 1.10.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 6329 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram. The Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, while passing the orders in Cr. M.P. No. 6329 of 2012 on 1.10.2012 has inter alia observed that "the petitioner is an Accused in the case and he has produced an original Registration Certificate to show that he is the owner of the vehicle viz., the Tractor bearing Registration No. TN 76 B 3083 and on perusal of the same, it comes to be known that he has purchased the said vehicle after the date of occurrence. Further, another person one E. Murugan has also made rival claim in respect of the vehicle by producing some receipts. The Petitioner/A3 has produced a xerox document stating that the vehicle has been given to him by E. Murugan, but, no document has been filed and ultimately held that the ownership of the vehicle will come to light at the time of trial/enquiry of the case and dismissed the petition.

(2.) According to the Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A3, the petitioner is the owner of the Tractor bearing Registration No. TN 76 B 3083 and in Crime No. 181 of 2012 on the file of the Respondent Police, a criminal case has been registered for the offence under Sections 379 of I.P.C. in regard to the theft of sand and in connection with the criminal case, the said vehicle was seized and remanded in P.R. No. 230 of 2012 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram.

(3.) The Learned counsel for the Petitioner/A3 urges before this Court that the Petitioner projected Cr. M.P. No. 6329 of 2012 before the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, seeking interim custody of the Tractor in issue. The Petitioner/A3 staked a claim that he is the owner of the vehicle, having purchased from Murugan (erstwhile owner of the vehicle).