Partly allowed

Ajithkumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC6 Apr 2009Crl.MC/1200/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the magistrate's order releasing a vehicle in favour of the respondent. The High Court set aside the order, directing the magistrate to reconsider ownership by weighing evidence, as possession alone was insufficient under established legal principles.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Magistrate directed to reconsider the matter afresh and dispose within three weeks; vehicle placed in court custody.

Ajithkumar Vs State of Kerala and Others — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1200 of 2009()

¶6

------------------------CMP.7772/2008 AND CMP.NO.7929 OF 2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... (CRIME NO.506/2008 OF NEMOM POLICE STATION)

¶7

PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

------------------------------------------------------------------

¶9

AJITHKUMAR, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR, VIJAYALAM, THAMBURAN NAGAR, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED:

¶12

--------------------------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. M.K.SALIM, S/O.MUHAMMED KUNJU, T.C.NO.35/649, VALLAKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. GIKKU JACOB R2 BY ADV.MR.VINOJ RAJAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

M.N. KRISHNAN, J

¶19

CRL.M.C.No. 1200 OF 2009

¶20

Dated this the 6^th day of April, 2009

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the order of

¶23

the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Neyyattinkara in C.M.P Nos. 7772/08 and 7929/08. The defacto complainant has come before this court with a prayer to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Admittedly the vehicle originally belonged to one Sreelatha. According to Sreelatha when she went to Hyderabad she had entrusted the vehicle with the driver and she had never seized to be the owner in possession of the vehicle. On the contra the respondent herein would contend that he has purchased the vehicle by virtue of an agreement, the photocopy of which was produced before the court. As per the agreement an amount of Rs. 5,85,000/- is paid and there is a balance consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The entering into an agreement is totally denied by the defacto complainant. It is a settled position of law that under Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act transfer of registration is really subsequent to the transfer

¶24

Crl.M.C. 1200/2009

¶25

-2-

¶26

ownership of the property. If one goes by the definition of a owner under 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered is also a owner. But these are matters which requires detailed consideration. When the entire transaction of sale agreement is denied and the registration still stands in the name of the defacto complainant as well as the other documents, the court has to weigh the preponderance of properties in order to decide the case set up by both the parties. Such a consideration has not been done by the court below and the court just relied upon the fact that the vehicle was taken possession of from the respondent herein and therefore released the vehicle in his favour. This is not proper. Therefore the court has to analyse and determine the whole question in the light of the enunciated principle of law laid down by this Court as well as the Apex Court.

¶27

Therefore the order under challenge is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to reconsider the matter afresh after affording equal opportunities to both parties to adduce their evidence. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider and

¶28

Crl.M.C. 1200/2009

¶29

-3-

¶30

dispose of that matter within a period of three weeks from today and till a final decision taken on the matter let the lorry be in the

¶31

custody of the court and release order can be passed when it finally dispose of the application within the stipulated time.

¶32

The Crl.M.C is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶34

vkm

Ajithkumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajithkumar v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alex Vs State of Kerala

Yousaf Vs State of Kerala

Stanin Symon Vs State of Kerala & Another

Manoj.T.J Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Bristo Foods Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident