TSENTHTL KUMAR Vs. SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
LAWS(MAD)-2000-6-5
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on June 23,2000

Tsenthtl Kumar Appellant
VERSUS
Sub -Inspector of Police Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

SHAHANAZ KHAN VS. STATION HOUSE OFFICER ALWAL POLICE STATION RANGA REDDY DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-2002-12-42] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.AKBAR BASHA KHADIRI,J. - (1.)THIS petition is to set aside the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Namakkal, in C.M.P. No. 632 of 2000 on 7 -3 -2000 refusing to give interim custody of the Van bearing Registration No. TN 39A 6886.
(2.)THIS petition has arisen in this way: The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. On 2 -2 -2000 while he was travelling in the van alongwith the driver the accused waylaid, kidnapped the petitioner and committed theft of the van regarding which a complaint was preferred before the first respondent who registered a case in Crime No. 161 of 2000. The case is pending investigation. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the vehicle the registration certificate stands in his name the accused abducted .him and forcibly obtained his signature in some blank court -fee stamp papers and blank stamp papers and also in the transfer form now the van is lying exposed to elements and it is deteriorating. According to the petitioner he being the owner the van should be returned to him.
It appears, the second respondent Kannan also made a claim to the van alleging that during the first week of January. 2000, the petitioner had sold the vehicle to him for a consideration of Rs. 3,00.000/ - and received Rs. 2,50.000/ - as advance and he had promised to receive the balance of Rs. 50,000/ - in a short while. The petitioner had also delivered the vehicle to the second respondent. It was agreed that the balance amount was to be paid on or before 25 -1 -2000 and the petitioner should deliver the R.C. permit etc. The purchaser had entrusted the vehicle to one Jayapal who is at Thiruvarur. But the petitioner had not delivered the R.C. and permit but forcibly took away the van from Thiruvarur and he had also falsely given a complaint. The first respondent has falsely registered a case alleging that the van was seized near Kudavasal.

(3.)THE learned Judicial Magistrate held that because there are rival claimants interim custody cannot be granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner has come forward with the instant petition.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.