P. SATHISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The salutary concept of Fair Trial which has received recognition under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 and guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has received wider interpretation at the hands of the Hon'ble Supreme Court so as to include fair investigation of a crime as well. Thus, prompt registration of a case by a competent police officer followed by swift investigation resulting in a quick final report are all concomitants of a fair trial. To be fair to the victim, fair to the accused and fair to the society at large are the Constitutional obligations of the police. If there is any deviance, it is likely to result in failure of justice. That is the reason why a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and Others, 2013 6 CTC 353 has issued as many as eight directions in the matter of registration of a case. But, the instant case illustrates as to how an information, promptly launched, has taken a long journey, changing many hands and at last landed in the hands of a Sub-Inspector of Police for investigation after ten months of its launching. Now let us trace the route and the root cause.

(2.) The petitioner, during the relevant period was working as a Team Leader in a private concern known as M/s.A.I.E. Cars, who is a dealer of Maruthi Cars. The first accused Mr.P.J.Balaguru had approached the petitioner company to purchase a Maruthi car. He obtained quotation for a car so as to arrange for loan from a bank. Accordingly the first accused applied for loan with the Karnataka Bank, West Mambalam Branch. The bank sanctioned loan for the same to the tune of Rs.8,39,000/- on 13.09.2012. The bank issued a demand draft in favour of M/s A.I.E. Cars viz., the petitioner. As per the arrangement the vehicle should be sold in the name of the first accused and the same should be hypothecated in favour of the complainant bank after it is registered under the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) After availing the loan, neither the first accused nor the petitioner herein had taken any interest to produce copies of the registration certificate of the car, insurance certificate and other documents. When the bank demanded the first accused and the petitioner for those documents, a copy of the registration certificate of the car bearing registration No.TN-10-AJ-4703, registered in the name of the first accused was e-mailed. But in the said registration certificate there was no hypothecation endorsement in favour of the bank. When the bank further enquired, it came to know that the demand draft was not presented for collection in the account of the dealer viz., AIE Cars, instead a separate account had been opened in a hurried manner in the State Bank of India, Shastri Nagar Branch, Adyar in the name of AIE Cars by one Mr.V.G.Arun and the demand draft was presented. The amount due under the demand draft was thereafter withdrawn from the said account. But the fact remains that the same was not paid to the actual dealer of the car viz., AIE Cars, in which the petitioner herein was a team leader.