Principles

·  Criminal procedure—Custody of goods, in respect of which offence allegedly committed, pending criminal proceedings—Original owner of goods should have interim custody Personal Property—Post, stolen and unclaimed property—Sale of goods on hire-purchase by hirer—Custody of goods pending criminal proceedings against hirer—Original owner of goods should have interim custody

 Where an owner of goods hired them to the accused on a hire-purchase contract, and the accused sold the goods to a third party before completing the hire-purchase payments, an order for the “proper custody” of the goods pending the result of criminal proceedings against the accused should award the custody to the owner, rather than to the third party since the owner will most probably be able to recover the goods under the provisions of Recovery of Lost and Stolen Property Ordinance, 1924, s. 3, r. 1, in any event, the goods being in such a case “stolen property” within the terms of section 2 of the Ordinance.

Judgment

M. A. Hassib J. September 24, 1962: —Accused, Awad Ahmed Hussein, entered into hire-purchase agreements with Singer Sewing Machine Company, whereby the latter hired to him on hire purchase four sewing machines. The property in them was agreed to have remained in the company till payment of the whole price.

 Accused, who is not a tailor, disposed of the four machines by sale to others and received the value from the purchasers.

 The company complained to the Resident Magistrate and the case is now subjudice in the Criminal Court against accused, Awad Ahmed Hussein, under Penal Code, s. 345.

            The Resident Magistrate ordered collection of the machines from the purchasers and that they should be kept in possession of the company.

 The purchasers made an application against the order of the Resident Magistrate and the Province Judge quashed the order of the Resident Magistrate and ordered delivery of the machines to the purchasers thereof. Hence this application against the order of the Province Judge dated July 11, 1962.

The law is clear. The machines should be kept in a safe place, and the order of the Resident Magistrate was made in accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure, 1925, s. 301, pending the conclusion of the investigation and trial.

   The four sewing machines are “stolen property” according to the definition prescribed by Recovery of Lost and Stolen Property Ordinance, 1924 s. 2 and they should be dealt with according to the rules of that Ordinance.

 I, therefore, think that the goods in question should be kept in a place fit for the proper custody thereof. The original owner (the Singer Sewing Machine Co.) is probably the person entitled to recover possession under rule 1, section 3 of the Ordinance, and therefore he is the person to keep the goods.

 In the result I quash the order of the Province Judge and restore the order of the Resident Magistrate. Goods to be kept with complainant.