Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police Chennai

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant. The Criminal Revision was filed against order dated 22.12.2003 made in CMP No. 7255 of 2003 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Ponneri, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Cr.P.C.). The application was filed for release of lorry bearing Registration No. TN-01-F- 9797 which was alleged to have been involved in a case registered for offences punishable under various provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The case of the appellant before the High Court was that money was provided to the respondent No. 2 to purchase the said lorry under a hire purchase agreement. In terms of the agreement, the hirer was required to pay 32 monthly instalments of Rs.14,875/- between the period from 24.6.2000 and 24.1.2003. Under the hire purchase laws, the hirer can become the owner of the vehicle by exercising the option to purchase after paying the entire amount due and till that time the financier is the owner. The financier is also entitled to possession of the vehicle since he is the owner. In the agreement, appellant is described as the owner and the respondent no.2 as the hirer. The appellant tried to take possession of the vehicle as an owner but the vehicle was not available at the premises and on enquiry appellant came to know that the police had seized the same on 6.9.2000 when the vehicle was operating with a fake number plate for transporting prohibited spirit. The First Information Report was lodged against respondent No.2 and therefore the appellant prayed for release of the vehicle. The prayer was resisted by the State on the ground that the vehicle had already been directed to be returned to the respondent No.2 as he was the owner as per the Registration Certification.

3. The High Court noted that the vehicle was involved in commission of offences punishable under Sections 4(I)(A) and 4(1)(aaa) of the Act read with Rules 5 & 6 of Rectified Spirit Rules. High Court also noted that though an order had been passed for releasing the vehicle in favour of respondent No. 2, he had not taken custody of the same though the order was passed on 23.1.2001. The High Court also noted that since the respondent No.2 was registered as owner of the vehicle and appellant was only the financier, the vehicle could not be released as prayed for. Accordingly, as noted above, the criminal revision petition was dismissed.

9. Undisputedly, in the Registration Certificate the name of the financier has been indicated and the factum that the vehicle was subject to such an agreement was also noted. In the agreement, appellant is described as owner, but respondent no.2 as hirer. It is noticed that the respondent No.2 had applied for the release of the vehicle and the High Court had directed the release of vehicle on certain conditions. Undisputedly, those conditions have not been fulfilled. The vehicle is, therefore, lying with the seizing authorities for nearly eight years now. In view of the factual position highlighted above, we direct release of the vehicle in favour of the appellant subject to fulfillment of the conditions which were stipulated for the respondent No.2.

10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.