T T GIRIRAJAN Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is to produce the vehicle seized by the Investigating Officer into court. The petition has arisen in this way.

(2.) The petitioner is the Regional Manager of a career known as M/s. Savani Carrying Private Limited. On 810-1997, the petitioner engaged lorry IDT 6360 belonging to one Ganesan to carry 640 cartons of cosmetics manufactured by Ponds India Limited from Pondicherry to Madhavaram. On the way, 43 cartons of cosmetics were stolen regarding which Baktavatsalam, the driver of the lorry gave a complaint to the Acharapakinam Police, who registered a case in Crime No. 623/97 under Section 379, IPC. Later it came to light that the owner of the lorry and the driver have committed theft of part of the consignment. Therefore, the petitioner preferred a complaint in Crime No. 1126/97 before Madhavaram Police. The Inspector of Police, Madhavaram seized the lorry, but he had failed to produce the same into court. The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur directed the first respondent to produce the lorry along with Form-95. Meanwhile, one Saraswathi sought for interim custody of the lorry of filing CRMP No. 3841/97 on the file of the Thiruvottiyur Judicial Magistrate. The petitioner filed CRMP No. 4483/97 seeking interim custody of the lorry.

(3.) According to the petitioner the owner of the lorry Ganesan admitted the theft to the petitioner and promised to compensate the petitioner by paying adequate money towards the value of the stolen consignment and he entrusted the lorry with the petitioner creating a lien over the same for the due payment. But the respondent has seized the lorry he had not produced the same into court. When notices were issued to the respondent in CRMP filed by Saraswathi and the petitioner for interim custody of the lorry, the respondent was reluctant to issue notices summons and finally informed that he had handed over the lorry to Ganesan and the lorry had met with an accident and is undergoing repairs in some workshop. The first respondent is evading production of the lorry into court. Now, the petitioner seeks the lorry to be produced into court.