G. GOPALASWAMY Vs. NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, against whom and three others the 2nd Respondent has filed charge -sheet, for offences under Ss.420 and 421, I.P.C. on a complaint given by the Respondent, challenges the order passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti under S.451, Crl.P.C. granting interim custody of the Matador, T.N.I. 8169 concerned in the crime to the 1st Respondent.

(2.) FACTS necessary for the disposal of the petitioner are: -The above van registered as a tourist taxi originally belonged to Dr. Srinivasan, who is the fourth accused in the case (who shall hereinafter be so referred). The case of the first respondent is that on 10.6.1986, the petitioner and his two sons, who are accused 2 and 3 respectively in the case, represented to him that they would make the fourth accused sell the van to the first respondent for Rs. 43,000. The first respondent believed the above words and acting on that representation, withdrew a sum of Rs. 10,000 from his account in the Indian Overseas Bank at Sankarankoil on 19.6.1986, pledged the family jewels in the State Bank of India at Sankarankoil for Rs. 22,000 as per AGL 22/160 and added the cash he had On hand, viz., Rs. 10,500 paid a sum of Rs. 30,500 into his credit in the Indian Overseas Bank on 19.6.1986, on the same day drew a cheque No. 591741 for Rs. 40,000 in favour of the fourth accused and handed over the cheque to the petitioner and his two sons, towards the sale price of the van. The cheque was duly encashed by the fourth accused on 21.6.1986. The first respondent was hoping that van would be handed over to him as also the registration certificate of the vehicle. However, he found that the vehicle was not handed over to him and no steps were taken, either by the fourth accused or by the petitioner and his two SOBS, to transfer the registration certificate; instead he found, that the van was being used by the petitioner. When the first Respondent demanded the vehicle from the Petitioner, the latter attempted to dispose of the vehicle to others. On 16 2.1987 the 1st Respondent gave a complaint about the above facts to the second respondent, who registered as Crime No. 77 of 1987 of his station against the petitioner, his two sons and the fourth accused for offences under Ss.420 and 421, I.P.C. He took up investigation and on the same day he seized the van white it was stationed near the bus stand; presumably while in the possession of the petitioner. After the van was remanded to judicial custody, the first respondent filed Crl.M.P. No. 565 of 1987 and the petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No 562 of 1987 for return of the van. Learned Magistrate passed a common order directing the vehicle to be handed over to the first respondent pending investigation and trial. The petitioner invokes the inherent powers of this Court under S.482, Crl.P.C. to have the above order set aside.

(3.) THE claims of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, for interim custody of the vehicle, could be broadly classified under the following three heads: - -