AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
18 paragraphs · 354 wordsC.T. Selvam, J.—This revision has been filed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sivaganga in Crl.M.P. No. 50 of
2009, wherein by order dated 13.03.2009, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sivaganga dismissed the petition for return of vehicle.
The Petitioner states that he is the bonafide purchaser of the vehicle for value and has nothing to do with the crime alleged. The learned Counsel
for the Petitioner submits that according to the order of the lower Court, there is a rival claimant into the vehicle, but no such rival claimant has
moved the lower Court or before this Court for any relief.
The learned Government Advocate opposes on the ground that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert is awaited and that would only reveal
whether the transfer in favour of the Petitioner is a genuine one or not.
I have considered the rival submissions.
We, at this stage, are concerned with the interim custody of the vehicle pending the trial in the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
there could be no prejudice, if the vehicle is in the hands of the person, from whom the vehicle was seized viz., the Petitioner herein.
Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the order of the lower Court is set aside. This Court directs the custody of the vehicle in the hands of
the Petitioner on proof of ownership and deposit of R.C. Book before the lower Court subject to the following conditions:
i) The interim custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-28-T-5077, is ordered to be entrusted to the Petitioner till the disposal of the
case, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the
learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Sivaganga;
ii) The Petitioner shall not alter, alienate or encumber, in any manner the said vehicle till the disposal of the case; and
iii) The Petitioner shall produce the vehicle, as and when required by the trial Court.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.