Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Srihari Prasad vs Avet Chemicals (P) Ltd. And Anr. on 13 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(2)ALD415, 1998(1)ALD(CRI)171, 1999(1)ALT(CRI)110
ORDER
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.
4. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition of the complainant and allowed the petition of the accused and directed for the interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the accused on furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 1,70,000/- and subject to certain other conditions. Aggrieved of that order, the complainant preferred Revision Crl.RP.No.45/ 95 and Crl.R.P.No.46/95 to the Court of Sessions, RR. District. The learned Sessions Judge by his common order, dated 29-12-1995 set aside the order of the Magistrate and directed the vehicle to be kept in any authorised garrage preferably of Mitra Agencies, if it is prepared to keep it and also directed both the complainant and accused to bear the rental charges for the garrage in equal shares. Challenging the said order of the Sessions Judge, the accused has come up with these revisions.
5. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and also the order of the Magistrate.
6. As seen from the impugned order, it does not seem to be in dispute that the certificate of registration for the said vehicle stands in the name of the accused and the vehicle was seized by the police while it was in his custody. But, the complainant filed proof of payment of sale consideration through D.D. to Mitra Agencies instead of to Yadav in whose name the vehicle was booked. The invoice and the Insurance Policy stand in the name of Yadav with care of address of the complainant Company. Accused also claims that he purchased the vehicle from the said Yadav. But, neither the complainant nor the accused secured and filed the affidavit of the said Yadav in support of their respective claims.
7. The crucial issue, under these accepted facts is whether the complainant or the accused should be held prima facie entitled to the interim custody of the vehicle.
8. While considering the conflicting claims for the custody of a motor vehicle seized by the police, one has to consider the effect of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for finding out the true claimant before passing order relating to the custody of that vehicle during the pendency of the criminal case. From the provisions relating to the registration of motor vehicles under the M.V. Act, it is clear that the registration certificate is an essential necessity before any such motor vehicle can be made use of and that any person in whose favour this certificate of registration is issued, obviously, would be the owner thereof, and such a person is entitled to remain in possession of the vehicle. Further, non-compliance of certain provisions of the M.V. Act some times makes the owner responsible. In those circumstances, it would be ordinarily prudent and in consonance with the provisions of the M.V. Act to allow such a motor vehicle to remain in possession of such a person in whose name the certificate of registration stands. By this, I do not mean that in each and every case, the vehicle should be given to the interim custody of the holder of registration certificate. There may be instances where the registration certificate-holder might have sold the vehicle and the registration certificate not yet transferred. In such cases, the claims of such persons also should be considered as against the claim of the person having registration certificate.
9. In the instant case, it is admitted that the certificate of registration stands in the name of the accused and as such, he is entitled for the interim custody of the vehicle. Further, the vehicle was seized by the police while it was in the custody of the accused. It is not the case of the complainant that the vehicle was stolen from its custody. On the other hand, accused has been in possession by virtue of registration issued by the Registration Authorities.
10. The learned Sessions Judge lost sight of the provisions of M.V. Act and the effect of the certificate of registration issued by the Registration Authorities. Further, he seems to have been carried away by the allegations in the complaint that the accused obtained registration by cheating the complainant. It is still at the stage of allegation and it is not yet proved.
11. Further, the order ofthe Sessions Judge directing the Motor Vehicles to be kept idle in the garrage of third party also does not appear to be proper and justified with the rising inflation, it has inevitably to be borne in mind that motor vehicles now have become very valuable properly - both as regards their cost and the use to which they are put Further, it is common knowledge that the motor vehicles are best maintained in a running condition and if they are kept idle for a prolonged period, the machinery thereof gets deteriorated and these vehicles are subject to easy pilferage of third party an tampering with the same.
12. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances in this case, the order of the Magistrate appears to be just and reasonable. The interests of the complainant also are safe-guarded by directing the accused to furnish Bank guarantee for Rs. 1,70,000/-with other conditions for releasing the vehicle to his interim custody.
13. In the result, both the revision cases are allowed. The impugned common order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside. The order of the Magistrate dated 20-10-1995 releasing the car to the custody of the accused, is confirmed.