Karnataka High Court
Sri Saifulla vs State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 215i day of April, 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI NAo~ARA.,if "
CRIMINAL PETITION Noi1e34»4iA/2'_0i0""
BB1 WEEN
Sri Saifulla,
S/o.Peer Ghose,
Aged about 53 years,
R/o.No.285, __
731 Cross, Byrasandra, '
Jayanagar, I Block, H v_ V' _
Bangalo1*e--560 0_i'1._,_ V' ' - .0 3 Petitioner
{By Amar Correa. At:iV.]1-
State of 'Karnata}§a;A:_0jV*._00"' «
By Vivek N 'agar_PoIiee.. "
Represented by the? '
, _ State 5-Pubhc Pros-eeV1:1_toI',
.V 'H.igh'~Co'iirt of Karnataka,
Respondent
Majage, HCGP] "a"ThiVs Cit? is filed U/ S 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to 'sets. aside the order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the ' .j1ear'r1ed Fast Track 111 Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in _ C.1'i.--R?' No.25016/2010 and the order passed by the X "'«"ACLditional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in Crime 0 No.133/2009 on 29.1.2010 dismissing the application '__M_g'"'?"\,-v~ filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.PC and grant interim custody of the Hyundai Getz car bearing Regn. No.UP--80 AX--0984 in favour opf-"the petitioner, direct the respondent -- Police to releaseathe said Vehicle to the possession of the petitioner. d This Cr1.P coming on for admission -- Court passed the following:
Accused No.4 in Crii1ie«.__.v.No.i3i3/20Ca£§"
Nagar PS, Bangalore City, hp; petition under Section 482 aside of the order dated 29.iaoiopa;saais.ii{a, case by the learned X Magistrate.
Bangalore _p(here'in.avfter"referred to as 'Trial Court' for short] rejecting his filed under Sections 451 _ read, Secti'o.I_i"457V:Cr.PC seeking interim custody of car bearing Regn. No.UP-80-AX»--0984. vtvhidchg {iIas;.__se'iZed in the said case. He has also
-V chalienged this petition the order dated 2.3.2010 it tijtyassepd the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track dtgiirtaiil and Additional Sessions Judge, Mayo Hail " tom, Bangalore, in CILRP No.25016/2010 dismissing it c.,~_;'§"'°'v*»-...
Liyakat Ali Khan, who is from Uttar Pradesh, committed theft of several vehicles and sold the same at variotts places in Karnataka State, including arid, the car in question is one of the said~Vveh'i.cie-s: and"
therefore the same was seized 'police '1;':V1'i--d.C'I'§--"
seizure panchanama during.»i1n/estigeatiion andfl_rve_portedt the seizure to the Triai sulornitting PF No.5'?/2009. it .
4. The herein'.:.fi1ed«°his..Vafiptlication under Section 45 457 Cr.PC seeking interim on the ground that he has been the "'ojs_42vnerVV" o"f'V.'.it he purchased the same .t.V.bona.fi}dely1 frornt No.1 during the year 2008 for _con_siderati_on of Rs.4,50,000/~, but he could not get the' sarne----transferred in his name and as such he is [the Iierson 'entitled to interim custody of the said "..i;{'ehic1e, 'i'he said application came to be rejected by the ____"'i'."1'rial Court on the ground that the petitioner was not in C"__1_w__("¢\---«..,,m...
lawful possession of the vehicle and also that he is not the owner of it. The Revisional Court, by its impugned order, confirmed the order of the Trial Court. C ' H' 'V
5. Sri Amar Correa, the learned, petitioner strongly contends that .t'he7lpetitioi1er-5 arrayed as accused No.4 other accused for allthe said' offences, has been the owner of the said vehicle as he;--.$g4s'__pi1rch'ased the same bonafidely frorinaccuseid 'for?Vfali.dagjconsideration of Rs.4,50,O0C5/w-- in possession of it since the dptiirchase and, he has produced original certéiiicate ofAV.reg:i's;tration pertaining to the said Vehicle standing'-.. in the name of accused No.1 and A":_there_fore "T,l'i€W"'I'€3_}l€C'[i0I1 of his application for interim Vehicle by the Trial Court is not ' '.justiiu'ied.;flHe4' further contends that_the Revisional Court A ..f;g1soC"committed an error in confirming the impugned §__,_M_'_('*-...~.___,..~ order by the Trial Court rejecting the application of this petitioner for interim custody of the said Vehicle.
6. it is not in dispute that except this (accused No.4) either any of other accused. f person has not claimed interim,' ' Vehicle which came to be seized there is no rival claim for it. date it is seized, it is kept idle inlithei It isualso not in dispute thatthis by this petitioner lseieed by the police in the C&SVۤ'llG'fl..2;4l.42QG9.' 3
7. It lithe settled principle that mechanically propelled vehicle not be kept idle, so that it would be unworthy of moving on the road.
Iii" the .. seized vehicle is damaged, the person, who if lllftiltifriiately may be found entitled to,'Wi1l sustain monetary loss for no fault on his part. Therefore, under W such circumstances, the vehicle shall be given to the person entitled to the interim custody of it and it {snail (..r~.~--»-~v be permitted to be used on % 'road.
8. Whether the said vehicle was stoienfjgripaccused»:
No.1 and whether this petitioner, from accused No.1 fully knowing it fstoilen V Vehicle, are the facts to estafbfishiefd the prosecution during tfriai . ]"e1_'f_ '._f,i1C case. The apprehension of__the the vehicle is given to the :ft1e"pe'titioner, who is one of the :'acc:useVd7i1fi.,ithipeéssid'case, he may misuse the saxne and in thvat"e\'fent,.:'the real owner thereof would be putiu loss, met with by imposing suitable conditions, 'Therefore, in my considered opinion, the ~as1=ure11 as Revisionai Court, both committed can errorcinét refusing to give the said vehicle to the if 'Cfinterim custody of the said vehicle, when there is no ¢__0_£~°'--r--\_...........
other person, except this petitioner has claimed interim custody of it.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed. the!"
following 1 The present petition is .Tl:'l¢:v.:iII1fif)UgH€d orders dated No.133/2009 by the learned. VX lilvietropolitan Magistrate, dated 2.3.2010 passed by the learned Presiding "Court--III and Additional Sessions Jiidge, 'Unit, Bangalore, are hereby set The V.ap.plie_ation filed under Section 451 read Cr.PC by the petitioner, who is accused N'o--I.1{i iiithe said case, is hereby allowed. ¢.m..:'*-""°---
pp p seized ffilfidai Get: Car bearing Regn. No.UP-- t..80fA.-$50984 shall be given to interim custody of the I€""'""'Cm'\.'K"'fl petitioner herein subject to the following Conditions that-
i]
iii) he shall not Change the colour or identity.:of.e:'t1i1e'_'"'a V' said vehicle;
he shall maintain the said indddfodad.Vsrotifttitfi' condition and produce"t_he_sa1n'e for the Trial Court once inid"tv:vo.'V_months' I preferably between ISL and of .a_h:ernatiVAeVAEnglish calendar month;
he shai'I4'A};ei.{ee13zte bond for Rs.-4, 3 :31.1n'de.rta}€if11g'i Ito' ' produce the said vehicle, _Befofe::,ihe"--T1"ia1 Com-'tzas aforesaid and also and when reqnire do so;
he shall two local sureties, each for the satisfaction of the Trial dispose of the said Vehicle nor shall ""'hev'--.':ore"ate any charge thereon, without the AA _ pemiission of the Trial Court pending disposal of V' V. _ the said case;
(...._..f""*"' Vi] Bkm.
he shall co--operate with the Investigating Offieer during investigation by producing befozfefhiin necessary documents pertaining to it before~..hin:v' for the purpose of investigation. g