KAVALURI SIDDA REDDY Vs. BATHALA RANGASWAMY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No. 24/1980 of Kodur Police Station in Cuddapah District. The 1st respondent filed a complaint under Section 409 read with Section 34 and 109 I.P.C., against the petitioner and another alleging that the petitioner had purchased the lorry bearing number APD 5196 under the purchase with Merchantile Credit Corporation, Madras, that the petitioner sold the lorry to one Mallikarjuna Chetty and delivered possession to him on 20/06/1978 that subsequently Mallikarjuna Chetty sold the lorry to the 1st respondent on 27/01/1979 and delivered possession of the Lorry along with the Registration Certificate Book and permits. It was alleged that the 2nd accused was a contractor in Andhra Pradesh Mining Corporation, and for transporting the goods the took the vehicle on lease from the 1st respondent and the lorry was entrusted to the 2nd accused along with Registration Certificate Book and permits on 12/04/1979. It is further stated the the petitioner with the connivance of 2nd accused failed to deliver the lorry to the 1st respondent. Thereupon, the 1st respondent preferred a complaint on 14/03/1980 in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nandalur, and it was sent to Kodur Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 18/03/1980 and it was registered as Crime No. 24/1980. The 2nd respondent, that is the Station House Officer, Kodur, seized the vehicle on 26/01/1981 and produced it in the Court and also filed a charge-sheet against the accused on the same day. The 1st respondent filed Crl. Mp. No. 126/1981 under S. 451 Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle on 27/01/1981. The Magistrate passed an order directing its release in favour of the 1st respondent. On the same day, the petitioner also filed Crl. Mp. No. 127/1981 and Crl. Mp. No. 130/1981 for release of the lorry in his favour. The three petitions were heard by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajampet, on 28/01/1981 and the learned Magistrate released the vehicle in favour of the 1st respondent. Questioning his order the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the R. C. Book and the way permits issued under the Motor Vehicles Act with respect to the vehicle stand in the name of the petitioner, that the vehicle was in his possession when it was seized on 26/01/1981 and under Section 451 Cr.P.C. the property has to be delivered to the person in whose name the vehicle stood registered, for he is, prima facie, entitled to its possession. It is further submitted that the matter is of a civil nature, that suits are pending against the 1st respondent and the Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of ownership when the Civil Court is seized of the matter.

(3.) On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that, in view of the allegations in the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate is justified in delivering the custody of the vehicle to the 1st respondent. He also submitted that the difficulty of the Registration Certificate standing in the name of the petitioner can be got over by the petitioner leasing out the lorry to the 1st respondent.