HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4864 of 2009 Dated : 27.08.2009 Between : Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd. ….. Petitioner a n d The State of A.P. & another ….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4864 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri A.Ramesh, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor, for the first respondent. The second respondent did not enter appearance before the Court though he has been personally served with notice of the petition. The criminal petition has been filed seeking custody of vehicle seized during the course of investigation. The petitioner claims that the second respondent herein obtained a loan from it for purchase of vehicle in question and hypothecated the same to the petitioner and since the seizure of the vehicle in crime No.114 of 2008 on the file of Alair Police Station, Nalgonda District, involving an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the second respondent failed to repay the loan or the contractual instalments since August, 2008. Though the second respondent filed an application for interim custody of the vehicle, the same was negatived by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.3655 of 2008 and though in revision, the Court of Session permitted in Crl.R.P.No.52 of 2009 interim custody of the vehicle to the second respondent subject to furnishing a bank guarantee for Rs.5 lakhs and further subject to an undertaking against alienation or change of physical features apart from deposit of the original registration certificate into the Court, the second respondent without complying with the same, filed Crl.P.No.377 of 2009 before the High Court. The criminal petition ordered on 02.02.2009 resulted in relaxation of the amount for which the bank guarantee has to be furnished to Rs.2 lakhs, but the second respondent failed to comply with the same also. The petitioner claims that it is entitled to repossess the vehicle as per the contractual terms in case of default by the second respondent. But, the petitioner was not permitted to be brought on record in Crl.P.No.377 of 2009 after its dismissal and therefore, it went to the trial Court with Crl.M.P.No.1866 of 2009 for interim custody, which was dismissed. The Court of Session also dismissed the revision against the same and both the Courts opined that they cannot interfere with the orders of the High Court in Crl.P.No.377 of 2009. Therefore, the petitioner filed this criminal petition for interim custody of the vehicle contending that if the vehicle is exposed to vagaries of nature, ultimately the petitioner will be put to loss and therefore, it requested for interim custody of the vehicle subject to any conditions. The Apex Court has laid down guidelines concerning interim custody of vehicles seized in crimes in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat[1] in order to prevent the vehicles from becoming junk day by day on being kept unattended in the premises of the police stations. The Apex Court also directed that the jurisdiction under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised within six months to achieve the said purpose and such power should be exercised judiciously and expeditiously. The petitioner filed copies of the loan agreement and B- Register of motor vehicle to probablize its interest in the vehicle seized and as the second respondent, the ostensible owner from whose possession the vehicle was seized, had failed to take interim custody of the vehicle in compliance with the orders of this Court modifying the orders of the lower court, the vehicle should not be allowed to deteriorate in the custody of the police or the Court unattended and unused. The vehicle can be returned even during the pendency of the criminal proceedings as evident from the earlier decisions. The interim custody can be entrusted to the petitioner and therefore, subject to appropriate conditions, the petitioner shall succeed. Hence, Toyota Innova vehicle No.AP09 BB 3200 seized in crime No.114 of 2008 on the file of Alair Police Station, Nalgonda District, shall be entrusted to the person authorized to receive the vehicle on behalf of the petitioner by way of interim custody on execution of a personal bond by such person for Rs.6 lakhs with 2 sureties for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhongir, and further subject to the petitioner undertaking not to change the physical features of the vehicle in any manner and to maintain the vehicle in the same state and not to alienate the vehicle till the finality of the criminal proceedings and to produce the vehicle whenever directed by the Court. The criminal petition is ordered accordingly. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 27th August, 2009 SUR [1] (2002) 10 SCC 283