JOHN PAUL Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL Revision Case is filed against the order, dated 27.12.2013, made in Crl.M.P. No. 3424 of 2013, on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Vanur, directing interim custody of the vehicle, to be given to Mr. R. Jeyapaul, the 2nd respondent in this revision case.

(2.) MATERIAL on record discloses that the the vehicle, "Toyota Innova", bearing Registration No. TN 10 AA 4199, has been seized by the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Police Station, in Cr. No. 334 of 2013, under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. C.M.P. No. 1837 of 2013, has been filed by Mr. John Paul/revision petitioner, under Section 457 Cr.P.C., to produce the said vehicle, from the Police custody. Before the lower Court, it has been contended that by Mr. John Paul, that he was authorised by R.Jeyapaul, the 2nd respondent herein, to sign all the legal proceedings on behalf of Mr. R. Jeyapaul, 2nd respondent herein. After considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat reported in : AIR 2003 SC 638 and this Court in Saravanan v. State, rep., by the Inspector of Police, Magaral Police Station, Kancheepuram District reported in 2011 (2) TNLJ 440 (Criminal), the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vanur, has directed interim custody of the vehicle to Mr. John Paul, imposing conditions to establish the ownership of the vehicle, by producing necessary Original RC Book and other relevant records. In addition to the above direction, the petitioner has also been directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Kancheepuram, apart from other usual condition of restraining the petitioner not to alienate the vehicle, in any manner and to produce the vehicle, as and when, required by the trial Court. The Inspector of Police, PEW, Villupuram, has been directed to produce the vehicle, before the lower Court, on or before 23.07.2013. Subsequently, Mr. R. Jeyapaul, has filed an application in C.M.P. No. 3424 of 2013, disputing the Power of Attorney, on the basis of which, Mr. John Paul, revision petitioner had obtained interim custody. According to Mr. R. Jeyapaul, 2nd respondent herein, he is the registered owner of the vehicle. Upon perusal of the details, contained in the certificate of registration, issued by the Motor Vehicles Department, wherein, the name of Mr. R. Jeyapaul, has been shown as owner of the vehicle, the learned District Munsif -cum -Judicial Magistrate Court, Vanur, by order, dated 27.12.2013, has directed the alleged Power of Attorney to produce the vehicle, before the lower Court on 03.01.2014 and when the vehicle is produced, ordered interim custody of the same, to Mr. R. Jeyapaul, 2nd respondent herein, subject to the following conditions,

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the order, directing interim custody, Mr. John Paul, has filed the present revision case. Based on the documents, enclosed in the typed set of papers, he has contended that Toyota Innova vehicle, bearing Registration No. TN 10 AA 4199, is owned by M/s. Arjuna Engineering Ltd., and that he is the authorised representative of the said Company. He has further submitted that the said vehicle has been purchased in the name of one of the Directors, viz., Mr. R. Jeyapaul, 2nd respondent herein, since the other Directors of the Company are Foreign Nationals. To support of the above contention, he has invited the attention of this Court to the Board Resolution of the Company, Invoices and other details.