P ABDUL WAHAB Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. This revision is filed challenging the propriety and legality of the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Thanjavur dated 3. 7. 1995 returning a unnumbered petition filed by the petitioner under Section 451 of the Code of criminal Procedure, praying for the return of the vehicle-lorry bearing registration mark AP. 02/t. 0999.

(2.) THE petitioner by name Abdul Wahab is said to be the owner of the vehicle in question. It is stated that when the vehicle was returned after making delivery of the goods in transit, within the jurisdiction of the respondent, the agent of the petitioner was attacked by the driver and cleaner of the lorry and the occurence had taken place in the cabin of the lorry itself due to which, the said agent succumbed to injuries and that therefore, a case under Section 302, Indian Penal code has been registered and is being investigated. THE vehicle in question was also seized by the respondent police as a part of investigation. It is further stated that considerable amount of cash was recovered from one of the accused, viz. , the cleaner of the said lorry. THE other accused viz. , the driver of the vehicle is still eluding away and he is yet to be secured. In this context, a petition under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate by the petitioner for the return of the lorry, but, however, the same was rejected on the objection made by the respondent herein. THE revision preferred against that order also met with the same fate. THEreafter, on 3. 7. 1995, after a lapse of six months, since the lorry was found in the custody of the respondent, lying idle, being the owner of the vehicle, the petitioner filed another petition; which was returned by learned Magistrate on 3. 7. 1995 itself on the ground that since the petition filed already under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was disposed of and the revision preferred against the order passed in that petition had already been dismissed, the present application was also not maintainable. This order is challenged in this revision.