* 1 * FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 575 OF 2008 ( MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD V/S.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.) __________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or Court's or Judge's directions and Registrar's orders orders ___________________________________________________________ Mrs.Priya Crasto, adv.for applicant. Mr.Sanjay Upadhyay,adv.for respondents no.2 and 3. Ms.S.D.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 20TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. This revision application is filed to challenge correctness of the order dated 3rd November, 2008 passed in C.C.NO.675/N/2008 by the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali, Mumbai rejecting an application filed by the original complainant for custody of the vehicle seized by * 2 * the police. The application is opposed by respondents no.2 and 3. At the time of seizure of the vehicle, it was in the custody of respondent no.4 who handed over the vehicle to the police. Since the, it is lying at the police station. 3. The applicant, the original complainant had advanced a loan in the sum of Rs.7,47,000/- to respondent no.2 and 3 for purchasing the vehicle in question. Since advancement of the loan, it is alleged that respondents no.2 and 3 did not pay a single installment. Instead they were found to be absconding for a period of 2 years. It is claimed by these respondents that they had to shift to their residence on account of serious illness of their father. However, there is no explanation as regards the total non-communication with the applicant as regards the loan * 3 * transaction. The applicant relies upon loan agreement dated 20th December, 2006. Clause 12(1)(ii) provides for return of the vehicle to the lender, in case of default in payment of the installments. The vehicle has been hypothecated to the applicant. In view of this position, the applicant can have custody of the vehicle. However, though the loan agreement permits the applicant to sell it for recovery of the loan amount, it shall not sell the same during the pendency of the proceedings. Hence the order. O R D E R (i) The order dated 3rd November, 2008 passed in C.C.NO.675/N/2008 by the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 17th Court, Borivali, Mumbai is set aside. (ii) The application filed by the applicant being C.C.No.675/N/2008 * 4 * for custody of the vehicle in question is granted on the condition that the applicant will not sell the vehicle during the pendency of the proceedings. [JUDGE]