SUBRAMANI Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUBRAMANI , who is the Petitioner in both the revisions preferred a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. claiming interim custody of the commercial vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 59 AP 3033 on the premise that he was the power of attorney holder of the financier with whom the registered owner of the vehicle, by name Manukumar, entered into a hire purchase agreement. The said Manukumar preferred a similar petition in Crl.M.P. No. 3819 of 2014 claiming interim custody of the same vehicle on the premise that he was the registered owner of the vehicle. The claim of Subramani was made on the ground that Manukumar entered into a hire purchase agreement with the principal of Subramani and hence till the payment of last instalment, the Principal of Subramani, namely the financier, alone shall be the person with whom the ownership of the vehicle would rest. The rival claim was made by Manukumar on the premise that besides he being the registered owner of the vehicle, he had been regular in payment of the instalments and the Financier stealthily removed the vehicle from his custody, pursuant to which, he approached the Police with a complaint.

(2.) THE learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai who heard the said petitions, by a common order dated 12.08.2014 dismissed the Petition filed by Subramani, namely Crl.M.P. No. 3853 of 20114, allowed the petition filed by Manukumar, namely Crl.M.P. No. 3819 of 2014, and directed entrustment of interim custody of the above said vehicle to Manukumar, pending investigation and pending disposal of the case subject to the condition that he should execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs along with one surety to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Madurai. These two revisions have been filed by Subramani against the said common order dated 12.08.2014. Crl.R.C(MD) No. 374 of 2014 has been filed challenging the said common order insofar as the dismissal of Crl.M.P. No. 3853 of 2014 is concerned. Cr.R.C(MD) No. 377 of 2014 has been preferred challenging the said common order insofar as the same relates to Crl.M.P. No. 3819 of 2014.

(3.) THE arguments advanced by Mr. E.V.N. Siva, learned counsel for Subramani, the revision Petitioner in both revisions, by Mrs. S. Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) representing the state arrayed as the first respondent in Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 374 of 2014 and second respondent in Crl.R.C(MD) No. 377 of 2014 and by Mr. S.S. Ramasamy, counsel for Manukumar who figures as second respondent in Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 374 of 2014 and first respondent in Crl.R.C(MD) No. 377 of 2014 are heard. The copy of the impugned order and the copies of other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.