Judgment 1. The petitioner in both these cases is a company registered under the Companies Act involved in the business of extending financial assistance for the purchase of motor vehicles, machinery and other assets. 2. In W.P.No.28583 of 2013, the petitioner has challenged the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.178 Home (Police XIX), dated 19.03.2013 and for a consequential direction to return the vehicles to the petitioner. 3. In Crl.R.C.Nos.259 to 265 of 2014, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 07.01.2014, passed by the Special Judge of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 'TNPID Act'), Coimbatore, dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., wherein prayer was made to grant interim custody of the vehicles mentioned in those petitions. 4. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, the Criminal Revision Cases and the Writ Petition have been clubbed together and posted for being heard together. 5. The case of the petitioner is that they granted financial assistance to the private respondents and its Partners/Directors, for purchase of vehicles, whose registration numbers have been mentioned in the prayer in the writ petition. Since, the private respondent/purchasers failed to repay the loan amount, the petitioner had taken steps to repossess the vehicle. At that stage, they came to know that the fourth respondent Police have registered a criminal case against the private respondent/directors/partners under Section 120(b), 406 & 420 IPC read with Section 5 of the TNPID Act in various crime numbers and the vehicles which were financed by the petitioner, were seized by the fourth respondent Police in connection with the said criminal cases. The petitioner would contend that they are the owner of the vehicles, as there is a hypothetication agreement between the petitioner and the purchaser and there is an endorsement in the registration certificate of all the vehicles, which reveal that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the vehicles and the fourth respondent Police has no jurisdiction to seize the vehicle. 6. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.Nos.7180, 7182 & 7186 of 2013, with a prayer for issuance of a direction upon the respondents 3 and 4 and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode as well as the borrowers to grant custody of the vehicles, whose registration numbers were furnished. 7. 6. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.Nos.7180, 7182 & 7186 of 2013, with a prayer for issuance of a direction upon the respondents 3 and 4 and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Erode as well as the borrowers to grant custody of the vehicles, whose registration numbers were furnished. 7. In the writ petition in W.P.No.7180 of 2013, one of the borrower/accused Mrs. S. Indumathi had filed a counter affidavit stating that the order of attachment made, has been challenged before the Special Court in O.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2013, which are pending. It was further stated that during the course of investigation, the vehicles have been seized and shown as the case property and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle that too in a writ petition, since there are contentious issues raised by the petitioner based on a hire purchase agreement, which has to be established before the competent Court and cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was further stated that the petitioner has to move the Special Court for TNPID Act cases under Section 451 or Section 457 Cr.P.C. It was further contended that the provision of the Act namely, Section 3, Section 4(3), Section 4(5) and Section 6 and the other provisions of the Act provide a comprehensive mechanism for attaching the properties and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. 8. The custody of the vehicles were sought for raising an identical contention as raised in this writ petition stating that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the vehicle, as there is a valid hypothetication agreement. This Court by a common order dated 04.10.2013, partly allowed the writ petitions giving liberty to the petitioner to make an application before the Special Court claiming interim custody of the vehicles under Section 451 Cr.P.C., further direction was made that if such application is made, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Special Court, with notice to all concerned as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the application. 9. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed seven applications before the Special Court for TNPID cases, Coimbatore, under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to grant the interim custody of the vehicles. 9. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed seven applications before the Special Court for TNPID cases, Coimbatore, under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C., with a prayer to grant the interim custody of the vehicles. The fourth respondent herein resisted the application by filing a counter affidavit stating that the private respondents had received deposits from the public by promoting various schemes and by supplying EMU birds to the depositors and promising hefty returns and since the private respondents defaulted in payment one Mr. R. Ramasamy, lodged a complaint with the respondent Police and after due enquiry, a case was registered against the accused for offences under Section 120(b), 406 & 420 IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act, 1997 and the matter was taken up for investigation. 10. It was further stated that there are more than 1000 depositors and the amount defaulted is about Rs.27 crores and the Government had passed an order dated 12.07.2013, ordering attachment of the vehicles and other immovable properties owned by the accused and that investigation revealed that the accused diverted the deposited amount for the purchase of the vehicles and therefore, the vehicles were seized by the Investigating Officer after recording the statement of the accused and that the District Revenue Officer, Erode, has taking steps to move the Special Court for making the order of interim attachment as absolute. Similar stand was taken by the competent authority under the TNPID, who was also arrayed as respondent in the said petitions. The accused/borrowers did not file any counter. The Special Court by separate orders dated 07.01.2014, dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioner holding that the petitioner was only a financial establishment, who lent money for purchasing the vehicles and in terms of Section 3 of the TNPID Act, the Government has power to attach the property of a financial establishment, who had defaulted the depositors for payment of the amount collected by the establishment from the depositors and on a perusal of the records, it would reveal that the vehicles were detained by the competent authority, as ordered by the Government of Tamil Nadu, as prescribed under the Act and the petition filed by the petitioner company is not maintainable. Challenging these orders, dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicles, the Criminal Revision Cases have been filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. 11. Challenging these orders, dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner for interim custody of the vehicles, the Criminal Revision Cases have been filed under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contention raised in the writ petition, which were also identical to that of the contentions raised in the Criminal Revision Cases and submitted that the Special Court did not consider the direction issued by this Court in the earlier Writ Petitions by order dated 04.10.2013 and that the order of the Special Court in dismissing the petition is not maintainable, and not sustainable in law. The learned counsel made elaborate reference to the terms of hypothetication agreement between the petitioner and the accused and submitted that the petitioner company is the owner of the vehicles and the borrowers/accused are only the hirers and the petitioner is entitled to seek for interim custody of the vehicle, as they are absolute owner of the same. In support of the contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sundaram Finance Ltd., vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 191, and the decision of this Court in the case of Vijayalakshmi Chit Funds vs. The Competent Authority and Revenue Officer Coimbatore & Ors., reported in 2014-1-L.W.,168. 12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor resisted the prayer made by the petitioner by reiterating the contention raised before the Special Court and submitted that the order of the interim attachment has been made and application has also been made before the Special Court seeking permanent attachment of the vehicles. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor referred to the common status report filed by the Inspector of Police, EOW-II, Erode District and submitted that all the vehicles were purchased from the public money and if the vehicles are returned to the petitioner as prayed for, the innocent depositors will be put to hardship and loss and till the cases are disposed of, the vehicles should be kept in judicial custody. 13. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions as well as the Criminal Revision Cases are inter-linked, this Court would proceed to first consider the prayer sought for in the writ petition. 14. The writ petition has been filed to quash the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.178, dated 19.03.2013. 13. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions as well as the Criminal Revision Cases are inter-linked, this Court would proceed to first consider the prayer sought for in the writ petition. 14. The writ petition has been filed to quash the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.178, dated 19.03.2013. The Government took note of the fact that the complaints were received from the depositors of the respondent company stating that they have defaulted in return of the deposits made by the depositors after maturity and the Government is satisfied that the financial establishments is not likely to return the deposits to the depositors and the Government have to protect the interest of such depositors and therefore, the movable and immovable properties alleged to have been procured by the financial establishments from and out of the deposits collected from the depositors, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the TNPID Act, makes an ad-interim order of attachment of the movable and immovable properties and transfers the control of the same to the competent authority, the third respondent in the writ petition. Further direction has been issued to the third respondent to pursue action in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 4(3) and (4) of the Act and also the formalities prescribed under the Rules. The petitioner has challenged the Government order stating that they have a preferential right to have custody of the vehicles on default committed by the borrowers in repaying the loan and the impugned Government Order violates the right given to the petitioner company under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, it is contended that the order of interim attachment has been issued only to cover of the lapse committed by the fourth respondent Police in having seized the vehicles even prior to the order of attachment. 15. Thus, though other grounds are raised, the sum and substance of the contention of the petitioner is on these two grounds. Firstly, it is to be noted that the impugned Government order is an order of ad-interim attachment under Section 3 of the Act and the same is not confined to the vehicles in question, but all movable and immovable properties of the financial establishment, the accused. 16. Firstly, it is to be noted that the impugned Government order is an order of ad-interim attachment under Section 3 of the Act and the same is not confined to the vehicles in question, but all movable and immovable properties of the financial establishment, the accused. 16. It is not the petitioner's case that the satisfaction arrived at by the Government is not borne out by records nor arrived at without any materials. Therefore, the petitioner cannot question the power of the Government to invoke its power under Section 3 of the Act. Even assuming that seizure has been effected prior to the order of interim attachment, it would not in the strict sense of the term vitiate an order of attachment under Section 3, the seizure which is sought to be focused by the petitioner, is not to be understood in the strict terms, but an action done by the fourth respondent Police with a view to protect the assets, thereby to protect the interest of the depositors. Therefore, on the grounds raised by the petitioner, the impugned Government Order cannot be quashed. 17. This Court in the case of S. Parathasarathy and Ors., vs. S. Arumugam and Ors., reported in 2006 (1) CTC 707 , held that after passing an interim order of attachment by the competent authority, this is Special Court has to deal with all subsequent proceedings relating to attachment namely, either to modify or vary or revoke the order of attachment and the writ petition is not maintainable. It is to be borne in mind that the statute intends to protect the deposits made by public in financial establishment and when several complaints have been received by the Government from the depositors regarding the non-return of the deposits, the Government can attach the properties of such establishments. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have been aggrieved by the order of ad-interim attachment. 18. Admittedly, the vehicles in question have not been disposed of by the competent authority and ad-interim attachment is yet to be made absolute and the application is stated to be pending. 19. The private respondent/accused are also said to have challenged the order of attachment by filing O.A.Nos.27 & 28 of 2013, which were pending, when the earlier writ petitions filed by writ petitioner was heard. In such circumstances, the question of quashing the impugned order does not arise. 19. The private respondent/accused are also said to have challenged the order of attachment by filing O.A.Nos.27 & 28 of 2013, which were pending, when the earlier writ petitions filed by writ petitioner was heard. In such circumstances, the question of quashing the impugned order does not arise. Accordingly, the prayer sought for in the writ petition to quash G.O.Ms.No.178, dated 19.03.2013, stands rejected. The petitioner has sought for a further direction in the writ petition to return the vehicles, this prayer has become infructuous in the light of the fact that the petitioner moved the Special Court and the Special Court has passed an order, which is challenged in the Criminal Revision Cases. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. 20. The challenge in the Criminal Revisions is to the orders passed by the Special Court dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 & 457 Cr.P.C. The contentions raised by the petitioner and the objections made by the fourth respondent Police as well as the competent authority have been referred to in the preceding paragraphs. The Special Court after taking note of the submission made on either side referred to the Section 3 of the Act and held that the Government is having every power to attach the properties on financial establishment, who had defaulted in payment to the depositors and therefore, came to the conclusion that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in law. The Special Court did not take note of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petitions in W.P.Nos.7180, 7182 & 7186 of 2013, dated 04.10.2013, the operative portion of the order reads thus:- 4. There is no dispute that the petitioner financed the fourth respondent for the purpose of purchasing the vehicles in question. The vehicles were all taken custody by the police pursuant to the order in G.O.Ms.No.178, dated 19.03.2013. It is also not in dispute that Crime No.8 of 2012 (W.P.No.7180, 7182 and 7186 of 2013), Crime No.2 of 2012 (W.P.No.7181 of 2013), have already been registered against the fourth respondent. The remedy of the petitioner is only to approach the Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act. In case, the vehicles are still under the custody of the police, necessarily it should be produced before the Special Court. 5. The remedy of the petitioner is only to approach the Special Court under the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act. In case, the vehicles are still under the custody of the police, necessarily it should be produced before the Special Court. 5. The petitioner is given liberty to make an application before the Special Court claiming interim custody of the vehicles under Section 451 Cr.P.C. In case, any such application is made, the same should be considered and disposed of by the Special Court, with notice to all concerned, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such application. 6. The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. 21. The writ petitions filed by the petitioner were allowed to the extent indicated above, giving liberty to move an application before the Special Court, claiming interim custody of the vehicles under Section 451 Cr.P.C. and there was a direction to the Special Court to dispose of the said application within a time frame. Therefore, the proper procedure that should have been adopted is by adjudicating the rights of the petitioner to seek for interim attachment. While doing so, the Court was bound to examine the right, which the petitioner possesses under the deed of hypothetication vis-a-vis the right of the borrowers/accused coupled with the fact that the vehicle in question is an order of interim attachment passed under the TNPID Act, which is a Special Act intended to protect the interest of the depositors, who have been defrauded by financial establishment. However, the Special Court has not addressed this issue. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anup Sharmah vs. Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors., reported in (2013) 1 SCC 400 , was considering the correctness of a decision of the High Court of Gauhati in a Criminal Revision case rejecting the case of the petitioner against the respondent therein that they had forcibly taken custody of the vehicle purchased by the petitioner therein on hire purchase from them. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent. The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the respondent. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the decisions in the case of Sardar Trilok Singh vs. Satya Deo Tripathi reported in (1979) 4 SCC 396 ; K.A. Mathai vs. Kora Bibbikutty reported in (1996) 7 SCC 212 , and Charanjit Singh Chadha vs. Sudhir Mehra reported in (2001) 7 SCC 417 ,summarised the law on the issue and held that in an agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of the financier/financial institution and the ownership remains with the institution and if a vehicle is seized by the financier, no criminal action can be taken against him, as he is repossessing the goods owned by him. 23. This legal principle if applied to the facts of the present case, it has to be necessarily held that the private respondents/accused are only hirers of the vehicle and in view of the valid hypothetication in favour of the petitioner, they retained ownership of the goods and the same remains with them till the deed of hypothetication is revoked. Therefore, the petitioner has to be necessarily heard in the matter and their right to seek for custody of the vehicles should be considered in the light of their right over the hypothetica and simultaneously, the powers under the Act, which was enacted to protect the depositors in the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Special Court calls for interference. 24. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Special Court for fresh consideration. The Special Court shall hear the petitioner, the competent authority, the respondent Police as well as the accused in whose name, the vehicle stands registered and decide the rights of the petitioner company vis-a-vis, the provisions of the TNPID Act, a Special statue. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the result, the Criminal Revision Cases are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.