Subramani vs The State

P.R. Shivakumar, J.—Subramani, who is the Petitioner in both the revisions preferred a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. claiming interim custody of the commercial vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 59 AP 3033 on the premise that he was the power of attorney holder of the financier with whom the registered owner of the vehicle, by name Manukumar, entered into a hire purchase agreement. The said Manukumar preferred a similar petition in Crl.M.P. No. 3819 of 2014 claiming interim custody of the same vehicle on the premise that he was the registered owner of the vehicle. The claim of Subramani was made on the ground that Manukumar entered into a hire purchase agreement with the principal of Subramani and hence till the payment of last instalment, the Principal of Subramani, namely the financier, alone shall be the person with whom the ownership of the vehicle would rest. The rival claim was made by Manukumar on the premise that besides he being the registered owner of the vehicle, he had been regular in payment of the instalments and the Financier stealthily removed the vehicle from his custody, pursuant to which, he approached the Police with a complaint.

The learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai who heard the said petitions, by a common order dated 12.08.2014 dismissed the Petition filed by Subramani, namely Crl.M.P. No. 3853 of 20114, allowed the petition filed by Manukumar, namely Crl.M.P. No. 3819 of 2014, and directed entrustment of interim custody of the above said vehicle to Manukumar, pending investigation and pending disposal of the case subject to the condition that he should execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs along with one surety to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate VI, Madurai. These two revisions have been filed by Subramani against the said common order dated 12.08.2014. Crl.R.C(MD) No. 374 of 2014 has been filed challenging the said common order insofar as the dismissal of Crl.M.P. No. 3853 of 2014 is concerned. Cr.R.C(MD) No. 377 of 2014 has been preferred challenging the said common order insofar as the same relates to Crl.M.P. No. 3819 of 2014.

As the rival claimant, namely Manukumar, was not made as a party in Crl.R.C. No. 374 of 2014, even though he has been arrayed as the first respondent in Crl.R.C. No. 377 of 2014, M.P(MD) No. 1 of 2014 in Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 374 of 2014 came to be filed by Subramani. The Petitioner in both the revisions has no objection for impleading Manukumar as second respondent in Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 374 of 2014. Mr. S.S. Ramasamy, learned counsel who has entered appearance for Manukumar in Crl.R.C.(MD) No. 377 of 2014 has taken notice for him in M.P(MD) No. 1 of 2014 and submitted that he has no objection for impleading Manukumar as second respondent as it would be to his benefit. Hence M.P. No. 1 of 2014 in Crl.R.C(MD) No. 374 of 2014 is allowed and the second respondent in the said M.P., namely Manukumar is impleaded as second respondent in Crl.R.C(MD) No. 374 of 2014.

The arguments advanced by Mr. E.V.N. Siva, learned counsel for Subramani, the revision Petitioner in both revisions, by Mrs. S. Prabha, learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) representing the state arrayed as the first respondent in Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 374 of 2014 and second respondent in Crl.R.C(MD) No. 377 of 2014 and by Mr. S.S. Ramasamy, counsel for Manukumar who figures as second respondent in Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 374 of 2014 and first respondent in Crl.R.C(MD) No. 377 of 2014 are heard. The copy of the impugned order and the copies of other documents produced in the form of typed set of papers are also perused.

On the basis of the complaint lodged by Manukumar, a case was registered on the file of Nagamalai Pudukkottai Police Station in Crime No. 361 of 2014 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 323 and 392 I.P.C. The subject-matter of the alleged theft, namely the earth moving equipment bearing Registration No. T.N. 59 AP 3033, was seized by the Police, produced and remanded as a case property before the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai. As such, rival claims were made by Subramani and Manukumar as indicated supra. Between the rival claims, claim of Manukumar was allowed by the learned Judicial Magistrate which resulted in the dismissal of the Petition filed by Subramani, the revision Petitioner in both revision cases and granting of the relief sought for by Manukumar in his petition namely Crl.M.P. No. 3819 of 2012. Though Subramani, the revision Petitioner has chosen to challenge the order passed in both Crl.M.ps., during the course of hearing of Criminal Revision Cases, the learned counsel appearing for him conceded that the revision Petitioner has committed a mistake in preferring petition for interim custody of the vehicle in his own name rather than on behalf of the finance company as his principal.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner in the revision cases argued for a while that the said discrepancy was only a irregularity and based on which the revisions need not be rejected. However, learned counsel for the revision Petitioner during the course of his arguments conceded that the order dismissing the Petition filed by the revision Petitioner need not be reversed and on the other hand, the order granting interim custody of the vehicle to Manukumar should be modified by imposing conditions. As the learned Judicial Magistrate omitted to prescribe any conditions for the maintenance of the status-quo of the features of the vehicle.

The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) is dis-interested and she does have no objection for the modification as suggested by the learned counsel for the revision Petitioner. Mr. S.S. Ramasamy, learned counsel for Manukumar who figures as respondent No. 2 in Crl.R.C(MD) No. 374 of 2014 and first respondent in Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 377 of 2014 also concedes that the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate can be modified by imposing certain conditions. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:

Crl.R.C(MD) No. 374 of 2014 shall stand dismissed. Crl.R.C. (MD) No. 377 of 2014 shall stand allowed-in-part and the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate granting interim custody of the vehicle shall stand modified by incorporating the following conditions in the said order:

i) The Petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai;

ii).The Petitioner shall file an affidavit of undertaking to that effect;

a) he will not alienate the vehicle without obtaining an order from the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VI, Madurai;

b) he will not change the colour of other features of the vehicle without the order of the Court permitting him to do so;

c) he will produce the said vehicle before the Court as and when summoned to produce the same; and

d) no major alteration excepting the necessary repairs to make the vehicle road worthy shall be made;

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.