Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1710 (AP)

Kents Finance Ltd. v. State Of A. P.

2001-12-31

V.ESWARAIAH

body2001
V. ESWARAIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition is filed under section 482 Cr. P. C. to quash the order dated 23-8-2001 made in Crl. M. P. No. 2845 of 2001 in Crime No. 124 of 2001 on the file of the VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, which was confirmed by the order dated 19-10-2001 made in Crl. R. P. No. 302 of 2001 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, Hyderabad. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is a financier in respect of Bajaj Caliber Vehicle bearing registration No. AP1on-4165 and the 2nd respondent herein is the hire-purchase agreement holder in respect of the said vehicle. The petitioner submits that the 2nd respondent, who is the hirer, has not cleared all the instalments pursuant to the hire- purchase agreement: and therefore, for all legal purposes, the petitioner is the legal owner of the said Bajaj Caliber Vehicle bearing Registration No. AP1on-4165. The said vehicle has been seized in connection with Crime No. 124/2001 of P. S. Osmania university, Hyderabad for the offences under sections 3 and 4 of PITA Act on 27-6-2001. The petitioner filed an application before the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate for the interim custody of the vehicle pending disposal of the criminal case in Crime no. 124/2001 under Sections 451 read with 457 Cr. P. C. But, the said application has been dismissed by order dated 23-8-2001 on the ground that there was an allegation in the remand diary stating that the vehicle belongs to A-5 Sreenivas, who is still absconding, and therefore, there are no grounds to release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. The learned Magistrate stated that according to the registration certificate of the said vehicle, the vehicle stands in the name of one nageswara Sharma (the 2nd respondent herein) under the finance of the petitioner. Thus, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is a financier and the 2nd respondent is the hirer of the said vehicle. Questioning the said order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed Crl. R. P. No. 302 of 2001 before the learned III Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, in which, the 2nd respondent submitted that he has no objection to order for the interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. Questioning the said order of the learned Magistrate, the petitioner filed Crl. R. P. No. 302 of 2001 before the learned III Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge, in which, the 2nd respondent submitted that he has no objection to order for the interim custody of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. But, the learned III additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge dismissed the said revision petition on the ground that no final report has been filed under Section 173 Cr. P. C; and therefore, unless the vehicle is produced before the court, the vehicle cannot be ordered to be released. Questioning the said order, this criminal petition is filed. ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the issuance of notice before admission, the 2nd respondent appointed a counsel and submitted that the 2nd respondenthas no objection for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner, as the instalments under hire-purchase agreement have not been paid by the 2nd respondent. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY, the vehicle is not liable for confiscation for the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the PITA Act. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in fact the said application has been filed under Sections 451 and 457 Cr. P. C. ; and under Section 457 Cr. P. C. , even though investigation is pending, the Magistrate is empowered to direct the release of the vehicle. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge has not dealt with the provisions under section457cr. P. C. Under Section457cr. P. C, whenever the seizure of property by any police is reported to Magistrate under the provisions of the Code and such property is not produced before a criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof. The petitioner is the lawful owner of the said vehicle; and the police have reported to the learned Magistrate about the seizure of the vehicle; and therefore, the learned Magistrate is empowered to make an order for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner subject to certain conditions. The petitioner is the lawful owner of the said vehicle; and the police have reported to the learned Magistrate about the seizure of the vehicle; and therefore, the learned Magistrate is empowered to make an order for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner subject to certain conditions. If the vehicle is not released, it will be exposed to sun and rain and its value will be diminished; and the vehicle is not liable for confiscation and the vehicle is used as a material object to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Therefore, the impugned orders are quashed; and the learned VI metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad is directed to release the Bajaj Caliber Vehicle bearing Registration No. AP1on-4165 in favour of the petitioner subject to the following conditions: (1) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for the value of the vehicle as a guarantee to produce the vehicle as and when required either by the investigating Officers or by the concerned Court during the enquiry or trial. (2) The petitioner shall not alienate or transfer or change the nature of the vehicle pending disposal of the criminal case. (3) The 2nd respondent, the hirer, shall file a Noobjection Certificate for release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner. (4) If the aforesaid conditions are not fulfilled, not only the vehicle is liable to beseized but also the personal bond to be executed for the release of the vehicle is liable to be recovered. The Criminal petition is accordingly disposed of.