M/s. Ujjwallaa foundations Ltd. vs The State and M/s. Dugar Finance India Limited.

I. David Christian, J.—Crl. O.P. No. 15027 of 1999 has been filed against the respondents i.e., (1) Inspector of Police, District Crime

Branch, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai and (2) M/s. Dugar Finance India Limited, represented by its Assistant Manager, Vijayalakshmi, Chennai

praying for a direction to the respondents to handover possession of two vehicles.

In the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the petitioner M/s. Ujjwala Foundations Limited, Chennai has made the following averments:-

The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act and the registered owner of vehicles two deluxe buses bearing Registration

No.AP0.2/V2574 and AP0.2/V.3213. The petitioner obtained permits from Road Transport Authority for running the buses between the routes

specified. The Registration Certificate for both the vehicles stand in the name of the petitioner. The second respondent filed a private complaint

before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri in Crl.M.P.No.4086 of 1998 on 20.9.1998 stating that the petitioner company has dismantled two buses

mentioned above and sold some parts and misappropriated the sale proceeds and thereby cheated the second respondent, that therefore they have

committed offence under Sections 406 & 420 IPC. The second respondent prayed for a suitable direction be issued to the first respondent

Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount to register a case and investigate the alleged offences. About ten months later, the

petitioner again filed a petition on 2.7.1999 purporting to be u/s 93 Cr.P.C. and praying for issue of a warrant directing the Superintendent of

Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to search and seize the above said two vehicles, namely Deluxe buses bearing Registration

Nos.AP0.2/V.2574 and AP0.2/V.3213. The Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri on the said application passed an order on 2.7.1999 itself directing

the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to search, seize and produce two buses referred to above on or before 31.7.1999

without issuing any summons u/s 91 Cr.P.C. The order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur,

Andhra Pradesh to seize two buses in an illegal order passed without application of mind and the learned Magistrate has been misdirected by the

second respondent who filed a false complaint and a petition before the said Court. The Inspector of Police D.C.B., St. Thomas Mount, Chennai

also directed two constables to accompany the petitioner, namely the second respondent and with the help of Superintendent of Police. Anantapur,

Andhra Pradesh, seized the vehicles above stated at Puttapurthi on 5.7.1999 and the seizure was effected from one Babu, an employee of the

petitioner company at Puttapurthi, from whom both of them have obtained acknowledgement to the effect that the vehicles have been taken by

them in pursuance of the warrant and in running condition. The acknowledgement and the admission made by the respondents themselves would

show that the allegation made in the private complaint that the petitioner has dismantled the buses and sold the parts to third parties are not true

because they themselves admittedly took two buses which were in running condition. The buses were seized from the petitioner and were handed

over to the second respondent by the first respondent at Madras. Aggrieved at the illegal actions taken by the second respondent, the petitioner

came to the court of Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri and filed a petition u/s 457 Cr.P.C. praying for a direction to return the seized vehicles to the

custody of the petitioner. But the learned Magistrate who has earlier issued a warrant for seizure has merely returned the petition with an

endorsement that the vehicles are not available before the Court because they are not produced by the police. The vehicles have been thus

fraudulently and illegally seized from the lawful possession of the petitioner and handed over to the second respondent. The petitioner has

purchased the vehicles under two hire purchase agreements with the second respondent Dugar Finance India Limited, and they have paid a sum of

Rs.22.92 lakhs which is more than 3/4th of the total value of hire purchase money. The dispute is only a civil dispute, but suppressing all these facts

and by making false representations, the second respondent has asked seizure of vehicles from the petitioner for which the learned Magistrate has

issued an order without application of his mind. No notice has been sent to the petitioner before issuing warrant. The second respondent originally

preferred a complaint on 20.9.1998 and after lapse of nearly ten months filed Crl.M.P.No.217 of 1999 and has obtained an illegal warrant of

seizure. Vehicles are now under the custody of the second respondent who has obtained the same illegally by making false allegations in the Court.

The petitioner is put to much loss and sufferings because he has to spent daily heavy amounts for taking persons from Puttapurthi to a site where a

project work is carried on by the petitioner. Obtaining of warrant after filing a false complaint is clear abuse of process of law indulged by the

second respondent and the first respondent has colluded with him. Even as per the search warrant which was issued without application of mind,

the vehicles after seizure must have been produced before the Magistrate. They were not produced and they were handed over to the second

respondent. Atleast when this petitioner filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri, the Court ought to have issued a direction calling

upon the police and the second respondent to produce the vehicles before him and should have adjudicated upon the petition filed by this

petitioner. Learned Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri exercised the power which he was not possessed of, but later declined to exercise his

jurisdiction without application of mind. The petitioner is incurring lose at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per day because of the high handed action of the

second respondent. Therefore, this petition is filed with a prayer to direct the second respondent to handover possession of two deluxe buses

bearing Registration NolAP0.2/V 2574 and AP0.2/V.3213 in the same condition at the time when they were seized.

Additional public prosecutor took notice on behalf of the first respondent and notice was also taken to the second respondent and a counsel has

entered appearance on behalf of the second respondent.

Along with the main petitioner petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.No.8425 of 1998 praying for interim direction pending disposal of the Crl. O.P.

directing the first respondent police to seize the said vehicles from the second respondent and also pass appropriate orders for the interim disposal

of the vehicles.

A. Ramamurthi, J. by an order dated 8.10.1999 has passed an interim order in Crl.M.P.No.8425 of 1999 directing the first respondent

Inspector of police, District Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai to seize both the vehicles and produce before the concerned Magistrate

and keep them under the safe custody until further orders.

M/s. Dugar Finance India Limited, the second respondent filed Crl. M.P. No. 10430 of 1999 alleging that the company has extended finance in

respect of two vehicles referred to in the petition to the petitioner under two hire purchase agreements, that the petitioner has to pay monthly hire

charges as per the schedule in the agreements, that there was default on the part of the petitioner in payment of monthly hire charges, that the

second respondent has only re-possessed the vehicles as per the terms of the agreement, that seizure was done on the basis of the order passed by

the Judicial Magistrate II, ponneri, mat he is entitled to be in possession of the buses and that there can be stay of operation of the interim order

passed in Crl.M.P.No.8425 of 1999.

The second respondent also filed Crl. M.P. No. 10766 of 1999 to vacate the interim direction granted in Crl.M.P.No.8425 of 1999.

The point for consideration is as to whether the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 15027 of 1999 is entitled for the direction prayed for?

The Point-Parties are referred to as they are arrayed in Crl.O.P.No.l5027 of 1999 The petitioner and the second respondent have entered into

two hire purchase agreements in respect of the buses bearing Registration Nos.AP0.2/V.2547 and AP0.2/V.3213 and the agreements are dated

3.11.1995. M/s. Dugar Finance India Limited is the owner of the said two buses and the petitioner is the hirer. As per the agreements, the vehicles

are to be in possession of the petitioner, who is obliged to pay monthly hire charges to the second respondent. The petitioner has bound himself

liable to pay monthly instalments and the period of hire purchase agreement in case of one bus is 35 months and in case of the other bus a total

period of 18 months. Until and unless the last instalment is made, the petitioner will be only a hirer of the vehicles in possession of the vehicles and

the ownership will rest with the second respondent, namely M/s. Dugar Finance India Limited. It is not in dispute that Registration Certificate for

body the vehicles also have been issued in the name of the petitioner under hire purchase agreements with the second respondent. Legal position

flowing from the hire purchase agreements admittedly entered between the parties is that the second respondent is the owner of the vehicles and

the petitioner is the hirer entitled to be in possession of the vehicles and in case of default, the second respondent will be entitled to exercise his

option of re-possession. So, the rights and obligations of the parties arising under the agreements cannot be disputed and it is only a right given to

the second respondent to re-possess the vehicle in case of default committed by the petitioner.

It is also not in dispute that under the hire purchase agreements executed by the petitioner, he has undertaken to keep the vehicles in running

condition and has further undertaken that he shall not sell the vehicles or mortgage it. The agreement also provide for re- possession of these two

vehicles in case of default in payment of monthly instalments or hire charges. So, while the petitioner is entitled to be in possession of the vehicles

and make use of the same, an obligation is cast upon him to pay monthly hire charges to the owner, namely the second respondent. The second

respondent has reserved for himself the right to re-possess the vehicles in case of default. It is now alleged that the petitioner has committed default

and that the second respondent has got right of re-possessing the vehicles. The petitioner also does not dispute that entire money due under the

hire purchase agreements has not been paid by him even though he would claim that 3/4th value of the agreements has been already paid to the

owner. If only the second respondent has chosen to proceed and re-possess the vehicle for any default committed by the petitioner, nobody can

take exemption to it. But, the re-possession has to be done only by the second respondent and it is a civil right to be enforced by him even without

intervention of the Court. But, the second respondent will have only the right to re-possess or right to proceed against the petitioner for

repossession and/or for recovery of the money due under the hire purchase agreements from the petitioner.

It cannot be now stated by the second respondent that he has re- possessed the vehicle only in conformity with the hire purchase agreements

entered by himself and the petitioner. A feeble argument was made to that effect stating that re-possession has been done by the second

respondent independently without enforcing the warrant obtained from the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri. But, this is stated for the first time by the

second respondent only with a view to wriggle out of the situation in which he finds himself. I will be able to demonstrate that even though the

second respondent is entitled to repossession of these two vehicle because the petitioner has committed default, his present possession is illegal in

view of the manner in which the second respondent has obtained possession. It is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the second respondent has actually taken the criminal court for a ride and learned Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri without application of mind has

allowed himself to be used by the second respondent when he issued a warrant.

The facts are that the second respondent filed a private complaint on 20.9.1998 u/s 200 Cr.P.C. in the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri

against the petitioner impleading him as an accused and alleging commission of certain offences under the Indian Penal Code. In the complaint filed

by the second respondent, an allegation is made to the effect that the petitioner who is impleaded as an accused therein has dismantled the vehicles

and sold parts of the vehicles to third parties and thereby committed offence of cheating and breach of trust. In fact the complaint was filed before

the Court of Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri alleging commission of offences u/s 406 and 420 IPC. There is no question of Section 420 IPC coming

into play because the necessary ingredients to constitute an offence u/s 420 IPC are that the victim should have been made to part with the article

on account of deception caused on him. Even according to the petitioner at the time when he filed the complaint or at the time of alleged

commission of offences, the possession of vehicles was not with the complainant but was with the petitioner that too under hire purchase

agreements admittedly entered between the parties. So, it is not as if that the second respondent was made to part with the vehicles due to any

deception or fraud played on him. The second respondent being owner of the vehicles has parted with two vehicles even according to him as per

the hire purchase agreements. Therefore, there is no question of parting with possession of vehicles due to any deception played by the petitioner.

No doubt the second respondent being the owner, the vehicles were handed over to the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner''s

obligation is to pay monthly hire charges. There is also a condition in the agreements that the petitioner shall not sell, mortgage or dismantle the

vehicles entrusted to him. So, if contrary to the agreement, if the petitioner has fraudulently or with intent to enrich himself unlawfully sells the

vehicle or mortgages the vehicle or make it subject to getting further finance and if the second respondent is deprived of his right of re-possession

of the vehicle, the petitioner can be stated to have committed an offence of 406 IPC. It is only with a view to bring this Section 406 IPC, an

averment even though false is made in the private complaint by the second respondent to the effect that the petitioner has dismantled the vehicles

and has sold the parts to third parties. So, the specific averment made by the second respondent in his private complaint made before the Judicial

Magistrate II, Ponneri is to the effect that the petitioner/accused has dismantled the vehicles and sold parts of the vehicles to third parties. If the

second respondent has believed these assertions made by him, he must have asked for seizure of those sold vehicles or parts from third parties to

whom the petitioner is alleged to have sold. But, strangely the warrant asked for by the second respondent is to seize the vehicles and handover the

same to himself from out of the petitioner. So, a reading of the complaint filed by the second respondent before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri

and the subsequent relief prayed for by him when he wanted a search warrant, would have convinced anybody that the allegations made are false.

Perhaps it is for this reason, the second respondent did not pray for seizure of vehicles on 20.9.1998, when he filed the complaint before the

learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.4086 of 1998. If really the petitioner/accused has sold parts of the vehicles entrusted to him after dismantling the

same, there should have been an urgency'' also on the part of the second respondent to ask for seizure of these parts from third parties to whom

the petitioner is alleged to have sold. But, while making certain allegations just to make it appear as if some criminal offences have been committed,

no petition for seizure or no warrant was sought for when the second respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri.

While the complaint was filed on 20.9.1998 and that too praying for a direction to forward the same to the first respondent. Inspector of

police, District Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai, after nearly ten months, he filed a petition in CrJ.M.P.No.217 of 1999 on 2.7.1999

and prayed for a search warrant to be issued favouring the Superintendent of police, Anantapur District in Andhra Pradesh for seizure of these two

vehicles. While the case of the second respondent in the private complaint is that the vehicles have been dismantled and parts have been

clandestinely sold to third parties, the prayer in Crl.M.P.No.217 of 1999 filed after ten months is for seizure of these two vehicles from the

petitioner.

It is unfortunate that the learned Magistrate has allowed himself to be misguided and without application of his judicial mind has issued the

warrant prayed for directing the Superintendent of police to go and seize the vehicles and'' to produce the same before him on or before

31.7.1999. Learned Magistrate has not applied his mind even though it is stated in the order that he has read the original documents filed by the

second respondent and he was satisfied which made him to issue the warrant. If any documents are perused by the learned Magistrate, it must be

only the hire purchase agreement entered between the petitioner and the second respondent as early as 1995. If the learned Magistrate has read

the agreements, he would have come to know that it is open to the second respondent to go and seize the vehicles by himself and no order is

necessary for effecting seizure. In fact a reading of the hire purchase agreements would have convinced the Magistrate that the Criminal Court has

no part to play in enforcing the rights guaranteed under the agreements. The Criminal court ought to have directed the complainant, namely the

second respondent to go and seek remedy before the Civil Court or to exercise the option of seizure of vehicles provided for in the agreements by

himself. But, without applying his mind, the learned Magistrate has issued a warrant favouring the Superintendent of police, Anantapur. Andhra

Pradesh to go and seize the vehicles from the possession of the petitioner.

The vehicles were stationed in the office of the petitioner at Puttapurthi. The permit obtained by the petitioner would show that he has obtained

permit for plying these two vehicles on a specified route in Anantapur district between Puttapurthi and workspot of the petitioner and the permit is

valid till 2001. Permits are obtained by the petitioner to be effective for a period of five years. In the permit also the address given by the petitioner

is at Puttapurthi where he got an office. So, when a search and seizure was prayed for by the second respondent, the learned Magistrate ought to

have known that the petitioner is having the vehicles only in the place where they are plying in accordance with the permits and therefore there is no

question of any stealthy arrangement or question of dismantling and stealing the parts. Strangely in the petition filed by the second respondent in

Crl.M.P.No.217 of 1999 he did not make any mention about petitioner having dismantled the buses or having sold the parts to third parties. As

already pointed out if components of the buses have been sold to third parties clandestinely as alleged by the second respondent, the search

warrant should have been obtained for getting those parts from third parties and warrant should have been obtained by the second respondent in

respect of the dismantled vehicles which could have been found stationery in any of the premises of the petitioner. But, there is absolutely no

mention in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for search warrant to the effect that the petitioner has dismantled the buses or sold parts of the

same to third parties. Merely a warrant was asked for seizure of two vehicles from the possession of the petitioner. In fact in search warrant it is

stated mat the petitioner has failed to pay monthly hire charges or monthly instalments. If only the Magistrate has looked into the hire purchase

agreements, he could have found that if the allegations are true, the second respondent will be entitled to go and seize the vehicle by himself and he

could have only asked for help or assistance from the police for which he could have approached me Civil Court and not the Criminal Court.

Therefore while me complaint makes somewhat vague reference to commission of criminal offences, we second respondent has unashamedly

admitted the failure of the petitioner to pay dues when he filed the petition for seizure and search warrant. As rightly pointed out by the learned

senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Magistrate has allowed himself to be misguided and has acted without jurisdiction and has

exercised powers which he ought not to have done. So, by playing fraud upon the court, the vehicles have been seized from the petitioner through

the obliging hand of a Magistrate and therefore there can be no two opinions with regard to the fact that seizure of the vehicles from the petitioner

is unlawful and it is clear abuse of process of criminal court.

The fact that the second respondent himself acknowledged that two vehicles were seized from the petitioner in running condition is proof

enough that the petitioner has not committed any criminal offences. There is no question of any breach of trust or cheating. The vehicles were in

possession of the petitioner only because they were entrusted to him as a result of hire purchase agreement entered between the petitioner and the

second respondent. The petitioner at the most is only a defaulting party to the agreements and to enforce the agreements, the second respondent

ought to have approached the civil court and not the criminal court. No offences have been made out. The offences mentioned in the private

complaint were purposely made to make it appear as if the petitioner has committed offence of 406 IPC which even on a bare scrutiny of the

complaint would have enabled the Magistrate to see through. But, the learned Magistrate has unfortunately not applied his mind and it is not even

known as to whether the Magistrate has forwarded the complaint u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registering a case.

It is also not known whether the first respondent Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount has conducted investigation or

enquired any witnesses much less the petitioner.'' During the course of investigation if the first respondent felt the necessity of making a seizure, the

subject matter of the crime, he must have come forward with a petition to seek a warrant from the Magistrate. But, the first respondent has stood

behind the second respondent, who has dared to come and file a petition for issuance of search warrant when he has no locus standi. Learned

Magistrate without adverting to all these facts, has simply issued a warrant as a result of which unfortunately the petitioner has been deprived of use

of the vehicles which he is lawfully entitled to. Even at mis stage, I would like to point out that the second respondent would have been perfectly

justified in repossessing the vehicles if only he has chosen to exercise the power conferred the him as per the two hire purchase agreements in case

of default. But, even then he could have seized the vehicles after foreclosing the loan and after giving notice to the petitioner calling upon him to pay

the dues as per the agreement. But, no notice of such demand or foreclosure of the agreements were made by the second respondent and

strangely only after accomplishing his object by taking for a ride the criminal court, the second respondent has issued a notice to the petitioner

stating that he has re-possessed the vehicle and demands a sum of Rs.3 lakhs from the petitioner claiming the said sum to be due from him under

the hire purchase agreements.

The second respondent has committed a fraud not only on the criminal court but also on the petitioner and this becomes obvious from a

reading of this notice which has been sent to the petitioner on 6.7.1999 wherein absolutely there is no mention about the criminal proceedings

initiated by him before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri. In this notice a fraudulent attempt is made by the second respondent to make it appear

as if seizure has been effected by himself by virtue of the provisions in the agreement which is totally false. The vehicles were seized by the warrant

issued, signed and sealed by the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri and it was given to the Superintendent Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to

execute the warrant and hand over the vehicles to the first respondent who has clandestinely handed over two buses to the second respondent.

The first respondent and the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur also have committed act of illegality in as much as after execution of the

warrant entrusted to him the Superintendent of Police must have produced the vehicles before the Court as directed by the warrant. In the warrant

it is stated that power is granted to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur, Andhra Pradesh to seize the vehicles and produce, the same before

the Court, namely the Judicial Magistrate, Ponneri on or before 31.7.1999. Warrant should have been returned by the Superintendent of Police,

Anantapur or by the respondents herein who have taken advantage of the warrant issued. Since the police was not a party to Crl.M.P.No.217/99,

the second respondent by himself should have collected the warrant from the court which is another act of indiscretion committed by the Judicial

Magistrate II, Ponneri. If the learned Magistrate has ''issued search warrant after being convinced by the reasons given by after second

respondent, he ought not to have closed the petition and should have adjourned it to 31.7.1999 to ascertain from the second respondent as to fate

of the warrant issued by him. Learned Magistrate ought to have insisted upon return of the warrant either after execution or non-execution. The

petition ought to have been adjourned to 31.7.1999 because that was the date by which the direction was issued to the police to execute and

produce the vehicles before him. But, the learned Magistrate after issuing the warrant has chosen to be inactive and not pursued the warrant issued

by him. The first respondent police has accompanied the second respondent to Andhra Pradesh and they have secured the services of the

Superintendent of Police, Anantapur to seize the vehicles. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur and the first respondent, Inspector of Police,

District Crime Branch, St. Thomas Mount have executed the warrant and seized the vehicles and they must have produced them before the court

which has issued the warrant which they miserably failed. The Magistrate has also failed in his duty in as much as he has not directed the police to

return the warrant either after execution or even in case it was not executed. The matter does not end here.

The petitioner has been taken by surprise because by making use of the warrant, he has been dispossessed of two buses which he is entitled to

be in possession, which he lawfully obtained. Therefore, he immediately came to the court which deprived him of the use of the vehicles and filed a

petition praying for return of vehicles stating that he Has not committed any offences, that seizure is unlawful and that he must be restored

possession of the vehicles to which the is entitled. The Magistrate who has chosen to issue warrant exercising his power where he had no

jurisdiction, strangely failed to exercise his powers when the petitioner filed the petition for re-possession of the vehicle from the court. Learned

Magistrate has simply returned the petition filed by the petitioner with an endorsement that the above said vehicles have not been produced before

the Court. So, atleast when the affected party, namely the petitioner who is made as an accused in the private complaint previously filed by the

second respondent, comes and files a petition praying for restoration of the vehicles which he is unlawfully deprived of, the Magistrate has chosen

to close his eyes and returned the petition stating that the vehicles are not produced before the court by the police.

If the learned Magistrate has taken the petition on file and has issued notice to the respondents and to the Superintendent of Police, Anantapur

calling upon them to produce the vehicles seized in pursuance of the warrant issued by the Court, one cannot find fault with the learned Magistrate

because it is open to him to say that he was convinced with regard to averments filed for issuing the warrant. But, the learned Magistrate himself

has chosen to return the petition without even asking the concerned persons to return the warrant or to produce the vehicles before the court after

which he could have passed further orders after adjudication. This silence on the part of the Magistrate is also significant and the learned

Magistrate cannot take the plea that the warrant has been obtained from him by wrong or false representation. Unfortunately the criminal court

itself was used and the petitioner became a victim of a scheme of fraud played by the second respondent actively assisted by the first respondent,

Inspector of Police, D.C.B., St. Thomas Mount, so, it is only in fitness of things that the petitioner must be restored possession of the vehicles

which have been taken away from him unlawfully and through machination of the second respondent who has also made the learned Magistrate to

pass an illegal order.

The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that he is entitled to re-possession of the vehicles in case of

default as provided for in the hire purchase agreement is no answer to the averments made by the petitioner which has clearly established an act of

fraud on the part of the second respondent. The second respondent must have only approached the Civil Court if he was not able to exercise his

right of re-possession by himself. On the other hand by making averments which have been proved false, the petitioner has been deprived of his

valuable right of possession of vehicles and therefore, the injustice done to him which was the direct result of the warrant of the criminal court, this

Court must act to restore the possession of the vehicles first to the petitioner. It will be till open to the second respondent to take appropriate steps

by haying recourse to civil court to settle his claims against the petitioner. Therefore, I direct the second respondent to return two vehicles whose

registration numbers are given above and the first respondent is directed to go and seize the vehicles from the second respondent or anybody

claiming under the second respondent and they shall produce the same before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri who is directed to handover the

same, to the petitioner after obtaining acknowledgement from him.

The petitions is allowed and the first respondent is directed to seize the vehicles wherever they are found either with the second respondent or

with anybody claiming under him and shall produce the same before the Judicial Magistrate II, Ponneri, who is directed to handover the same to

the petitioner and both the respondents are directed to report compliance before this Court by 14.03.2000.

In the result, Crl. O.P. No. 15027 of 1999 is allowed. Crl. M.P. No. 10766 of 1999 is dismissed and Crl.M.P.No.8425 of 1999 is closed.