1 cr-apln-2988-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 2988 OF 2010 Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent .... Mr.Shailesh Kumar Adv. for applicants Mr.S.A.Shaikh APP for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 6, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard both sides. 2 The applicant is a finance company. This application pertains to a vehicle i.e. Mahindra Scorpia Car bearing No. KL-25/A-2355. The prayer in this application is for deletion of some conditions in the order dated 8.3.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge whereby the vehicle was returned to the applicant. 3 The said vehicle was purchased by one Ambadi Rubber Traders, Kerala by taking loan from the applicant-finance company. On 2 cr-apln-2988-10 account of the loan the vehicle was hypothecated to the applicant. The vehicle came to be seized by L.T. Marg police station in CR No. 270 of 2008. The case is pending before the Sessions Court at Mumbai and is numbered as Sessions Case No. 247 of 2009. As the vehicle was seized the applicant preferred an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Esplanade 47th Court, Mumbai seeking interim custody of the said vehicle. The learned Magistrate by order dated 16.10.2009 gave interim custody of the vehicle to the applicant on certain conditions. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial and it was numbered as Sessions Case No. 247 of 2009. The applicant preferred an application before the Sessions Court stating that the vehicle is lying idle and due to non-usage and passage of time, the vehicle may deteriorate and turn into junk, hence, the applicant sought permission to sell the said vehicle. The said application came to be allowed by order dated 8.3.2010. However, the learned Sessions Judge imposed certain conditions on the applicant in relation to the vehicle. The applicant is aggrieved by condition nos. a, c and e. in the said order. The said conditions are as under: a. the sale proceeds of the said vehicle shall be 3 cr-apln-2988-10 deposited with this Court and release to such party as this Court may deem appropriate, upon the conclusion of the trial; c. the purchaser of the said vehicle shall also furnish a security equal to the amount of security furnished by the bank; e. the transfer of ownership shall be subject to such orders that this Court may pass on conclusion of trial. 4 As far as the conditions `a ’ and `c ’ are concerned, the applicant has been directed by condition `a ’ to deposit sale proceeds of the vehicle in the court and hence, in my opinion it would not be necessary that the purchaser should also furnish security equal to the said amount of the security as per condition `c ’. Hence, condition `c ’ is deleted. However, instead the purchaser should furnish a personal bond for the same amount. 5 As far as condition `e ’ is concerned, obviously, as the case is pending the final ownership can only be decided at the end of the trial, after entire evidence has been led. Hence, it would not be advisable to delete this condition. The learned APP stated that the trial is going on and only 4 to 5 witnesses remain to be examined. Looking to this fact, I 4 cr-apln-2988-10 am not inclined to delete condition `e ’. 6 As far as condition `a ’ is concerned, as the vehicle is sought to be disposed of however, the trial in the said case is still going on, hence, till the trial is over, it would not exactly be known to whom the vehicle ought to be given, hence, it is necessary that the sale proceeds of the said vehicle be deposited in the Court and released to such party as the Court may deem fit and proper after the conclusion of the said trial. In this view of the matter, no case is made out to interfere with conditions (a) & (e) imposed on the applicant. However, condition `c ’ is modified to the extent mentioned in para 3. 7 Application is disposed of in above terms. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]