B SRIHARI PRASAD Vs. AVET CHEMICALS P LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Revision cases raise rather significant issue pertaining to the merits of the rival claims for the custody of a motor vehicle which is produced before a Criminal Court. As the subject-matter of an offence. These revisions arise from a common order dated 29-1.2-1995 of theleamed Sessions Judge, R.R District, Hyderabad, reversing the order of the Magistrate.

(2.) The facts that have given rise to these revisions are these: The Company M/s. Avet Chemicals (P) Ltd., Hyderabad represented by its Sales Director (hereinafter referred as complainant) filed a private complaint against B. Srihari Prasad (hereinafter referred as accused) in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hyderabad West & East, under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate referred it to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation. The Police Balangar Police Station registered the complaint as Cr.No. 113/95 under Sections 420 and 406 I.P.C. and issued the F.I.R. During the course of investigation, Maruthi Car bearing No.AP-26-C-459 was seized and produced into Court on 4-8-95. The same was, initially, handed over to the Police for safe-custody. The complainant filedCrl-M.P.No.2608/95 and the accused filed Crl.M.P.No.3553/95 for interim custody of that car pending disposal of the case.

(3.) The case of the complainant is that the Company purchased the vehicle after paying sale consideration on 15-1-1994 ihroughD.D. drawn on Bank of lndia, Balangar, Hyderabad, that the Company took delivery of the vehicle from Mitra Agencies, Himayalnagar, got the sale papers signed by Narasimha Yadav in whose name the vehicle was booked and the vehicle and papers were handed over to the accused for getting the vehicle registered in the name of the complainant, but the accused who was an employee in the Company of the complainant, got the vehicle transferred in his name and he has retained the vehicle in his possession even after he resigned from the complainant-Company. The contention of the accused is that he is the true owner of the vehicle having purchased the same from Narasimha Yadav and the vehicle stood registered in his name and as such, he is entitled to intenm custody of the vehicle.