JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for revisionists and learned A.G.A. for State-respondent. 2. This criminal revision under Section 401 read with Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been filed aggrieved by order dated 18.07.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad in Case No. 2138 of 2005 rejecting the application of revisionist for release of Vehicle No. UA 04C 1478. 3. Facts, in brief, are that a First Information Report was lodged by Dr. N. Verma, Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Farrukhabad on 21.10.2005 stating therein that on 01.10.05 at 7:50 O'clock, he, along with Police Constable Shri Suresh Sharma (Supervisor) and Police Constable Shri Vivek Dwivedi and Prahari Constable Shri Indrapal Singh, in a Government Vehicle No. UP 30L 6256, was carrying out checking at the distance of 50 yards from Central Jail Outpost when driver of vehicle, DCM, bearing no. UA 04C 1478, on being signalled by him to halt, stopped the vehicle and fled away. Vehicle was loaded with vardaana (cattle) and around 21 cows and a she-calf tethered with ropes were seen sitting there. Driver fled away and vaardana in the vehicle appeared to be utterly miserable. Besides driver, there were 3-4 other persons in the vehicle. Seeing complainant and Prahari Constables, miscreants jumped off the vehicle and fled towards the field as soon as vehicle stopped. They did not stop on being called and could not be apprehended even after being given a chase. All these persons were taking these 21 cows, over the middle age, feeble and miserable by appearance, for illegal slaughtering. All the cows were de-boarded from DCM with the help of public; and leaving these cows to the care and protection of Central Jail Outpost's Sub-Inspector Shri Vijay Singh Pundeer, Constable Shri Surendra Singh and Prahari Constable Shri Vivek Dwivedi, and leaving the aforesaid DCM under the watch of the above mentioned Constable on the campus of Central Jail Outpost where other challaned vehicles are also parked, informant came to Police Station and submitted tehrir whereupon First Information Report was registered vide Crime No. 2183 of 2005 under Section 3, 5, 8 of U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1955”) against 3-4 unnamed persons. 4. Thereafter Revisionist, Magma Leasing Limited, submitted an application for release of vehicle DCM UA 04C/1478, claiming itself to be owner of the Vehicle on the basis of being Financier. 5. 4. Thereafter Revisionist, Magma Leasing Limited, submitted an application for release of vehicle DCM UA 04C/1478, claiming itself to be owner of the Vehicle on the basis of being Financier. 5. Magistrate found that as per report of concerned Police Station, despite action under Section 82 Cr.P.C., neither accused have surrendered nor have been arrested. Applicant, Finance Company, had lent loan to Mohd. Naeem, son of Mohd. Yasin. Hence, registered owner will only be Mohd. Naeem. Merely on the basis of advancement of loan, applicant cannot claim to be owner of vehicle. In these circumstances, Magistrate found that release of vehicle in favour of Revisionist is not in interest of justice, and has, accordingly, rejected application. Being aggrieved, Revisionist has filed present revision. 6. Sri Parekh, learned counsel for Revisionists, submitted that Magistrate has erred in law by treating Mohd. Naeem as owner of vehicle though Revisionists, being Financier, are the owner of vehicle, and, therefore, the same must have been released to Revisionists. 7. Copy of the Vehicle Loan cum-Hypothecation Agreement, dated 30.06.2005, has been placed on record and Condition No. (B) Clause-7 clearly states as under: "7. Subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions contained herein, the ownership/title on the Vehicle(s) belong/shall belong to the Borrower/s solely and absolutely and is/shall be free from any and all charges and encumbrances save and except that created hereunder in favour of the Lender." (Emphasis added) 8. Under other conditions of agreement, I find that there is Clause D (1), (2), (3) which reads as under: "(D) TERMS OF HYPOTHECATION 1. The Borrower/s hereby hypothecates the Vehicle(s) in favour of the Security Trustee, as more particularly laid down in the Schedule hereto. 2. (a) The Hypothecation of the Vehicle(s) shall deem to take place immediately on signing of this Agreement or delivery of the Vehicle(s) whichever is earlier. (b) Despite the Borrower/s having possession of the Vehicle, the Security Trustee shall continue to hold lien over the Vehicle and the Borrower/s shall be deemed to hold possession in trust for the Security Trustee. 3. During the subsistence of these presents the Borrower/s will not create any other debt or any mortgage, pledge, hypothecation, charge, lien or encumbrance upon or in respect of the Vehicle(s) or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever in favour of any person, firm or company or bank. 3. During the subsistence of these presents the Borrower/s will not create any other debt or any mortgage, pledge, hypothecation, charge, lien or encumbrance upon or in respect of the Vehicle(s) or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever in favour of any person, firm or company or bank. The Borrower/s will not part with the possession, give on hire, lease, leave and licence or conducting arrangement or otherwise deal with the Vehicle(s) or any part thereof without intimation to the Lender and the Security Trustee and will not permit, suffer to be done any act, deed, matter or thing which may adversely affect or in any way prejudice the security created in favour of the Security Trustee." (emphasis added) 9. Position of a Financier, vis-a-vis borrower who has taken loan for purchase of vehicle was considered in Trilok Singh Vs. Satya Deo Tripathi AIR 1979 SC 850 . Court held that under hire purchase agreement, Financier had made payment of huge money and he was in fact owner of vehicle. 10. Again in Anup Sarmah vs. Bhola Nath Sharma and others 2013 (1) SCC 400 , following earlier decision in Charanjit Singh Chadha and Ors. Vs. Sudhir Mehra JT 2001 (7) SC 226, Court said that in an agreement of hire purchase, purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of Financier/Financial Institution and ownership remains with the latter. Thus, in case vehicle is seized by Financier, no criminal action can be taken against him as he is repossessing the goods, owned by him. 11. A three-Judge Bench has considered liability of Financial Institution, i.e., Bank in HDFC Bank Ltd. vs. Kumari Reshma AIR 2015 SC 290 . Court held that the person in possession of Vehicle under hypothecation agreement is treated as owner. It relied on an earlier decision in Purnya Kala Devi Vs. State of Assam and another 2014 (4) SCALE 586 that a person in control and possession of vehicle should be construed as "owner" and not alone “registered owner”. Court also held in Purnya Kala Devi (supra) that registered owner of vehicle should not be held liable if vehicle is not in his control. The aforesaid decision has been followed in Central Bank of India vs. Jagbir Singh AIR 2015 SC 2070 . 12. Court also held in Purnya Kala Devi (supra) that registered owner of vehicle should not be held liable if vehicle is not in his control. The aforesaid decision has been followed in Central Bank of India vs. Jagbir Singh AIR 2015 SC 2070 . 12. However, I may further add hereat to make the things clear, that in the context of liability of payment of compensation, question, who is owner under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") has been considered differently. In Godavari Finance Co. Vs. Degala Satyanarayanamma and others 2008 (5) SCC 107 , this question was considered by Court in the light of meaning of “owner of vehicle” under Section 2 (30) of Act, 1988. Court held that definition of “owner” would mean only “registered owner”. It is said that definition of 'owner' is a comprehensive one. The definition clause itself states that vehicle which is subject matter of a hire purchase agreement the person in possession under agreement shall be 'owner' and that the name of Financier in registration certificate would not be decisive for determination as to who was the owner of vehicle. It is further said that in case of Motor Vehicle which is subjected to a hire purchase agreement, Financier cannot ordinarily be treated to be owner. The person, who is in possession of vehicle and not Financier being the owner, would be liable for payment of damages. 13. In Pushpa @ Leela and others Vs. Shakuntala and others 2011 (2) SCC 240 , 'registered owner', Jitender Gupta sold his truck to one Salig Ram and handed over possession. When question of liability for compensation came up for consideration, Court said that notwithstanding sale of vehicle, neither transferor Jitender Gupta nor transferee Salig Ram took any step for change of name of owner in the certificate of registration of vehicle. Hence, Jitender Gupta would be deemed to continue 'owner' of the vehicle' for the purposes of Act, 1988, though under civil law, he ceased to be its owner after its sale. 14. Same view was taken in Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and others 2001 (8) SCC 748 wherein Court said: "There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. 14. Same view was taken in Dr. T.V. Jose Vs. Chacko P.M. alias Thankachan and others 2001 (8) SCC 748 wherein Court said: "There can be transfer of title by payment of consideration and delivery of the car. The evidence on record shows that ownership of the car had been transferred. However, the Appellant still continued to remain liable to third parties as his name continued in the records of R.T.O. as owner." 15. In Surya Pal Singh Vs. Siddha Vinayak Motors and Another 2012 (12) SCC 355, dispute arose in the proceedings initiated before Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. It is in this context, Court said that under Hire Purchase Agreement, it is Financier who is owner of vehicle and the person, who takes loan, retain vehicle only as a bailee/trustee. 16. In Bharath Metha Vs. State by Inspector of Police Chennai 2008 (5) SCC 752 , question of release of vehicle itself was considered. The vehicle was seized in relation to certain offence punishable under Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Financier, Bharath Metha, claimed release of vehicle stating that respondent-2 provided huge money to purchase Lorry under a hire purchaser agreement. Under hire purchase law, hirer can become owner of vehicle by exercising option to purchase after paying entire amount due and till that time Financier is the owner. Financier is also entitled to possession of vehicle since he is the owner. Court observed that in Registration Certificate, name of Financier has been indicated and the factum that vehicle was subject to such an agreement was also noted. In the agreement, appellant Bharath Metha was described as 'owner' but respondent-2 as hirer. It is in these circumstances, Court directed to release vehicle in favour of Bharath Metha. 17. In view of above, I find manifest error in the impugned order passed by Magistrate, rejecting application for release of vehicle to Revisionist on the ground that it was registered in the name of Mohd. Naeem, though financed by Revisionist. 18. Even otherwise, keeping a seized vehicle, standing at a Police Station, for long period, would result only in decay and damage of vehicle inasmuch it is a matter of common knowledge that these vehicles are virtually dumped in a deserted condition in Police Station. Many a times when Police Stations do not have sufficient space, seized vehicles are dumped outside Police Station and on the side of road. Many a times when Police Stations do not have sufficient space, seized vehicles are dumped outside Police Station and on the side of road. In such matters, unless there are some special reasons, Magistrate are expected to pass appropriate order by taking appropriate bond, guarantee/security etc. for return/production of vehicle from person to whom it is released, and it can also impose such conditions for production of vehicle whenever required, as may be necessary. 19. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the view that the question, whether Revisionist can be said to be owner of vehicle in question and the same can be released to is or not depend on the terms of agreement and other relevant documents. All these aspects have not been examined by Magistrate, and, therefore impugned order cannot sustain. 20. In the result, revision is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.07.2006 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to Magistrate to pass a fresh order in the light of discussion made above and in accordance with law, expeditiously, and in any case, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 21. Certify this judgment to the lower Court immediately. ——————