Ashok Leyland Finance (A division of Indus Ind Bank Ltd) & Anr. v. This Court made the following

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.519 of 2005 ORDER: - The present Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jaggayyapet passed Crl.M.P.No.3351 of 2004 in C.C.No.382 of 2004, dated 16.03.2005.

#2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s father viz., V.Mahadev Tagore was owning four lorries and he died intestate on

17.08.2003. The petitioner’s step-mother viz., Smt. Vasireddy Varalakshmi seems to have obtained certificate from the Village Secretary stating that she was the legal heir of late Vasireddy Mahadev Tagore and thereafter interpolated certain words in the certificate issued by the Village Secretary and made application to the Regional Transport Authority, Vijayawada for transfer of the vehicles in her favour. The Regional Transport Authority, Vijayawada transferred the ownership of the vehicles in her favour and she in turn has sold in favour of one Srinivas and another. On coming to know the same, the petitioner filed a complaint and the same was registered as Crime No.46 of 2003. During the course of investigation, the vehicles have been seized and interim custody was given to respondent No.1. After vehicles have been seized by the Station House Officer, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 459 Cr.P.C. for permission to auction the vehicles and to deposit the sale proceeds in the court by way of bank guarantee. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class without issuing notice and without hearing the de facto complainant passed the impugned order to sell the vehicles. Being aggrieved thereby, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

#3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner mainly argued that allowing the petition filed under Section 459 Cr.P.C. without issuing notice and without giving an opportunity to the de facto complainant, is erroneous and that respondent No.1 has no locus standi to file the application.

#4. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable?

#5. As seen from the record, on filing present Criminal Revision Case, this Court on 30.03.2005 ordered interim stay vide orders in Crl.M.P.No.6700 of 2005. As on this day, none came forward and filed the petition for vacation of the stay. Therefore, pursuant to the stay orders, the vehicles could not be put to sale. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner is not able to say the stage of the proceedings. Moreover, a perusal of the record shows that the private complaint is filed against three accused, accused No.1 is the mother of the petitioner and accused Nos.2 and 3 are subsequent purchasers of the vehicles in question.

#6. A perusal of the record further shows that earlier, the 1st respondent filed Crl.M.P.No.1765 of 2004 requesting the court to grant interim custody of the said vehicles bearing registration Nos.AP 16W 7812 and AP 16W 7821 respectively and the trial court was pleased to grant interim custody of the said vehicles to the 1st respondent. Subsequently, he filed Crl.M.P.No.3351 of 2004 to permit him to sell the vehicles and deposit the sale proceeds into the Court by way of bank guarantee as the vehicles are lying idle and the condition of the vehicles is being deteriorated from time to time due to lack of maintenance. The revision petitioner herein did not file any revision against the orders in Crl.M.P.No.1765 of 2004. Therefore, the orders passed thereunder reached its finality. The present petition is filed subsequent to the disposal of Crl.M.P.No.1765 of 2004. The trial court though not issued any notice to the respondents in the interest of the parties permitted the 1st respondent to sell the vehicles in the presence of A1 to A3 and L.W.1. Therefore, I see no ambiguity and illegality in the orders passed by the trial court as the trial court given opportunity to A1 to A3 and L.W.1 to be present at the time of alleged auction. Accordingly, I see no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the trial court.

#7. The Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

15.06-2012 ___________________ K.S. APPA RAO, J HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.519 of 2005

15.06.2012