THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1885 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Revision Case is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 20.07.2010, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dismissing Crl.M.P.No.623 of 2010 in Crime No.133 of 2010 of S.N.Puram Police Station, Vijayawada. The succinct facts of the case are that the petitioner is the financer and there is a hire purchase agreement between the petitioner and second respondent and on the basis of the same, the second respondent purchased a Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP-16-BL-2022. It appears, a case in Crime No.133 of 2010 was registered against second respondent under Section 3 of Chit Funds Act and under Sections 3 to 5 of Andhra Pradesh Protection of Depositors of Financial Establishments Act. In the light of said registration of the crime, the said car and other properties belonging to the second respondent were seized by the police. As the said car is hypothecated to the petitioner-financer, the petitioner is the owner of the same so long as the amounts advanced by it to the second respondent are repaid. Hence, it approached the Court below and filed Crl.M.P.No.623 of 2010 requesting the Court below to release the said vehicle in its favour. However, the learned II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada by his order, dated 20.07.2010 refused to release the vehicle. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present Criminal Revision Case. It is a fact that a crime has been registered against the second respondent and the properties belonging to second respondent including the vehicle in question were seized. But, as per the terms of the hire purchase agreement, the financer will always be the owner so long as the amounts as per the hire purchase agreements are not paid by the second respondent. Further, the financer will have a first charge over the said vehicle. According to clause 30 of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the financer like the petitioner herein with whom the vehicle is held under hire purchase agreement is the owner for all practical purposes and it ceases to be the owner of the vehicle only when the borrower i.e., the second respondent discharges the entire liability. In those circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled for release of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and it is further directed that the said Tata Indica Car bearing No. AP-16-BL-2022 be released in favour of the petitioner, on condition of the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty thousand only) and the said bank guarantee shall be in force during the course of enquiry and trial. As and when the said vehicle is released, the petitioner is at liberty to sell the same and realise the amount due to it by the second respondent under the hire purchase agreement. ___________________________________ JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA 27th October 2010 DR