A.P. Ajayan, Official Receiver vs Dy. SP. CBCID

S.S. Satheesachandran, J.—The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

i) Call for Ext.P4 official memorandum issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, and quash the same as illegal.

ii) Give direction to the Honourable Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court to pass orders on Exts.P3 and P5 as expeditiously as possible.

iii) Pass such other orders which are incidental and proper in the interest of justice.

Petitioner is the official receiver of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. In an insolvency proceedings (O.P.(IP). No. 2/2008), he has been appointed as a receiver by the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and such proceedings are initiated to declare the 4th respondent as insolvent. Fourth respondent is the prime accused in a crime registered with allegations of cheating and defrauding a lot of people, and investigation over that crime is pending. The movable properties of the above accused, a number of vehicles seized by the investigating agency, after production before the Magistrate Court, are ordered to be sold by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, passing Ext.P4 order without giving notice and hearing the petitioner, the Receiver appointed by the Sub Court, is the grievance raised for quashing Ext.P4 order. Petitioner had moved Exts.P3 and P5 petitions before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapurma, and both of them remain to be taken up and considered by the Magistrate, is the further grievance seeking for a direction to the Magistrate to pass orders on such petitions as expeditiously as possible.

I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the Public Prosecutor. It appears that Ext.P4 order has been passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, exercising supervisory jurisdiction of the court over the investigation of the crime, after perusing the case diary and taking note of the steps so far taken in the investigation over the crime. The directions issued by the Magistrate militate against the order passed by the Sub Court, in the insolvency proceedings, wherein the Sub Judge has appointed a receiver, the petitioner, directing him to take over the possession of the assets of the 4th respondent, who is sought to be declared as ''insolvent''. Ext.P2 is the further order moved by the learned Sub Judge on the application of the aforesaid receiver, wherein he sought orders from the court to enable him to seize custody of the properties of the respondents proceeded in the insolvency petition. The learned Sub Judge, after considering the petition, has directed the Receiver to bring to the notice of the Criminal Courts, wherein some of the movable properties belonging to the respondent, after seizure, as involved in the crime registered, had been produced, to hand over the custody of the movables to him to enable the court to pass appropriate orders in the insolvency proceedings. Despite bringing to the notice of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after his passing of Ext.P4 order, the pendency of the insolvency proceedings and the appointment of the receiver directing him to take possession of the movable and immovable properties of the persons proceeded against and sought to be declared as ''insolvent'', by filing Exts.P3 and P5 petitions, those petitions are not considered and the petitioner is not afforded an opportunity to present his case before the Magistrate, is the submission of his counsel. It is also submitted that Ext.P4 order had been passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, when he was in charge of the Chief Judicial Magistrate for a day, over the crime case pending investigation on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Public Prosecutor submits that the directions 3 and 4 issued in Ext.P4 order by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, directing the investigating officer to sell all the cars and also the snake boat seized in the case cannot be proceeded with inview of the conflicting order given by the learned Sub Judge directing the receiver to take over such properties belonging to the accused, who are proceeded in the insolvency proceedings. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel on both sides and also taking note of the facts and circumstances involved, I find that the following directions would suffice the ends of justice. The directions 3 and 4 issued by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate under Ext.P4 order, directing the investigating officer to sell the cars and snake boat of the accused, is ordered to be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment, and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the case may be, who is having supervision of the crime, CBCID. No. 169/2008, pending investigation, shall consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P5 petitions moved by the petitioner, receiver appointed by the Sub Court in (O.P.(IP)No.2/2008, within one month from the date of this judgment. Opportunity to be extended to the above receiver for making submission on his petitions, which shall be disposed after hearing the accused, the Asst. Public Prosecutor, and if necessary, the investigating officer also. The concerned Magistrate, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, shall dispose the petitions in accordance with law within the time stipulated. Subject to the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of.