M/S. Manappuram Finance Ltd vs State And Ors on 18 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT01-002217-2024
CR No. 56/2024
M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd.
Registered office at :
CIN-L-65910 KL 1992PLC006623IV/470A (Old),
W-638A (New), Manappuram House, Valapad,
Thrissur, Kerala-680567
Regional Office At :
109-110, First Floor, Padma Tower-II,
Rajendra Place, New Delhi-08
Acting through its Attorney Sh. Munazir Hasan
.... Revisionist
Vs.
1. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
2. Parvesh Yadav
S/o. Sh. Vijay Pal Singh
R/o. Chipyana, Buzurg, Gautam Budh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-201009.
3. Sh. Kailash Yadav
S/o. Sh. Ram Ashre Yadav
Service be through SHO Pharganj.
4. Sh. Sukh Sagar
Service be through SHO Pharganj.
.... Respondents
Date of institution of revision : 16.02.2024
Date on which order reserved : 18.10.2024
CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 1 of 17
Date on which order pronounced : 18.12.2024
ORDER
1. This is the revision petition u/s. 397 Cr. P.C. against the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 passed by Sh. Deepak Kumar-I, ld. ACMM-01, Central district, THC, vide which the application of the superdari of the vehicle bearing no. HR 55 AH 2013 was allowed in favour of the R-3 Kailash Yadav while the application seeking superdari by R-2 Parvesh Yadav was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the revisionist are that initially R-4 Sukh Sagar was the registered owner of the vehicle which was hypothecated through Mahendra Finance. R-4 gave the vehicle to R-3 but he failed to pay the installments. R-4 deposited the vehicle to Mahendra Finance. R-3 got registered an e-FIR bearing no. 30745/2022 u/s. 379 IPC, PS Pahar Ganj. During the said period, the said vehicle was purchased by R-2 from Mahendra Finance and on 12.01.2023, the revisionist company sanctioned loan to R-2 on the hypothecation of the said vehicle, as such, R-2 became the registered owner and the revisionist company became the hypothecator which is recorded before the RTO, Gurgaon, Haryana. It is alleged that R-2 defaulted in repayment of loan and in the meanwhile, the revisionist company came to know about the impugned order dated 01.12.2023 vide which the application seeking superdari of R-2 has been rejected and the custody of the vehicle was given to R-3.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present revision CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 2 of 17 petition has been filed by the revisionist company on the following grounds :-
(a) That respondent no.2 is the bonafide purchaser and petitioner is bonafide hypothecator of the vehicle in question. Respondent no.
3 is not having any ownership right upon vehicle at any point of time therefore he have no locus to receive the hypothecated from the IO, Pharganj, Delhi.
(b) That ownership of the respondent no.3 is remained unproved. Ld. ACMM has wrongly taken the Cognizance upon the unregistered documents of the respondent no.3 and report of IO. Registration of the E-FIR would not confer any ownership right to the respondent no.3 that would not supersede the registered ownership right of the respondent no.2 and hypothecation charges of petitioner.
(c) That respondent no. 2 and Petitioner has not committed any foul play upon the respondent no.3 and impugned order has harmed their right upon the vehicle in question.
(d) That the impugned order is in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 and settled proposition of the vehicle superdari release orders.
(e) That the impugned order is arbitrary and capricious. If the impugned order is allowed to stand grave travesty and miscarriage of justice would be caused to the petitioner.
(f) That the impugned order for the aforesaid reasons and grounds is wrong, incorrect, untenable and therefore liable to be set aside.
4. Ld. Counsel for the revisionist has argued at length and has filed written submissions. It has been argued :-
(a) That petitioner is financier of the vehicle in question and respondent no. 2 is the registered owner of it. Allegation that respondent no. 3 has purchased the vehicle from the respondent no. 4 CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 3 of 17 is a sham transaction and in contravention of the section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Relevant portion of the Section 39 is reproduced herein below.
39. Necessity for registration. No person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this Chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner.
(b) That section 40 provides that every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has residence or places of business. Therefore respondent no. 3 did not have any right to use and possess the vehicle in question.
(c) That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled as M/s. Pragati Paper Mill Ltd. vs. M/s. British Motor Car Co. Ltd. & Ors. was pleased to held as follows :-
"6.The aforesaid provision of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly shows that no vehicle can be driven on road unless the same is registered in the name of the owner. In the present case, the initial ownership of the said Opel Astra vehicle was in the name of Ms. Rewa but she was never in the picture as the said car was purchased by the appellant from the authorized dealer i.e. respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in whose favour alone the appellant had issued the cheque towards sale price of the vehicle. As per the defence of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, their case is that all the transferred documents duly signed by Ms Rewa were handed over to the appellant and it was for the appellant to have acted to get the ownership of the said vehicle transferred in its name. On the other hand, the plea of the appellant is that the obligation was on the part of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to get the ownership of the said vehicle transferred in the name of the appellant. Except one letter of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 wherein they have confirmed that the said form Nos. 29 and 30 were submitted to the registering authority, there is no other evidence led by the appellant to show if any steps were taken by the appellant to pursue the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to get the said vehicle registered in the name of the appellant. It is an undisputed fact that without the registration of the vehicle being transferred in the name of the appellant, the said vehicle was being driven on the road in contravention of the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As per Section 50 of the said Act, it is the responsibility of the transferee also to report about the transfer within 30 days of the purchase of the vehicle and action U/s 50 (3) and 50 (5) r/w S. 177 can be taken against the transferor or transferee for not reporting to the registering authority about the fact of the CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 4 of 17 transfer within the given time. As already discussed above, the transferor is not in the picture in the present case and therefore it was the sole responsibility of the transferee to have reported the transfer of the said vehicle within the mandatory period of 30 days and in case the transferred documents were available with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 then transferee should have properly followed up with the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to get the ownership of the vehicle transferred in its name within the said period. It is quite apparent from the facts on record that the appellant became active only when the said car met with an accident after 2-1/2 years from the date of the purchase and consequently had to get major repairs done. No letter of request was made by the appellant to the respondents during this period of 2-1/2 years, therefore it is quite evident that the appellant itself was negligent in taking proper steps to get the ownership of the said vehicle transferred in its name."
(d) That the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter titled Vikas Investment Company Vs. The State was pleased to held as follows :-
"In the decision in M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.. (supra) release of vehicle was claimed both by the hirer and the financier and after noticing the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, Contract Act and the decisions cited, a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court held that in case of default in payment of instalments by hirer the financier is entitled to interim custody of the seized vehicle. I agree with that view taken by the Division Bench. Applying the ratio in the said decision to the facts of present case the petitioner is entitled to the release of said vehicle in its favour on superdari under Section 451 Cr.P.C. and the impugned order being in the nature of abuse of process of Court deserves to be set aside under section 482 Cr. P.C."
(e) That Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court was pleased to held in the matter titled as M/s Ashok Leyland Finances Ltd Vs Ramesh Kumar that default in payment of installments by the hirer whether the company/ financier has a right to take possession of the vehicle. Registration Certificate issued in his name confers no right on hirer to become an absolute owner until he fulfills the terms and condition of the hire purchase agreement. It was observed as follows :-
"In this case, as the claim for custody of the vehicle was put by the hirer Ramesh Kumar and the financier petitioner, the Magistrate was duty- bound to examine the terms of the hire- purchase agreement because a definite stand was taken by the financier that the default in payment of the installment amount has been made by the hirer and merely because the Registration Certificate has been issued in the name of the CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 5 of 17 hirer who would, but for this hire purchase agreement, have been entitled to possession of the vehicle in question, would not in any manner take away the right of the financier under the hire-purchase agreement to obtain interim custody of the vehicle in question because by that time the hirer had not become the absolute owner of the property. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has rightly taken into consideration that in Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question, it was mentioned that the same has been hypothecated with the petitioner financier and the absolute owner of the vehicle in question under the hire-purchase agreement was the financier who had the right to take possession of the vehicle because of the default committed by the hirer All these circumstances were not taken into account by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, who has said nothing in the order as to the basis on which he found that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has gone wrong in ordering the release of the vehicle in question on Superdari to the financier."
5. Ld. Counsel for revisionist has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
(a) M/s. Pragati Paper Mill Ltd. vs. M/s. British Motor Car Co.
Ltd. and Ors., 2011 (122) DRJ 216
(b) Vikas Investment Company Vs. State, 2000 (52) DRJ
(c) Ranbir Singh Vs. State and Ors., 2000 (52) DRJ
(d) M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Kumar, Crl. R.
6. To the contrary, Ld. Addl. PP for State/ R-1 argued that there is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order and the ld. Trial Court rightly allowed the application of superdari. It is prayed that the present revision petition may kindly be dismissed.
7. Ld. Counsel for R-2 has filed written submissions. It has been argued "-
1. That R-2 is the registered owner of vehicle bearing no. HR 55 AH 2013 made Maruti model Ertiga and it was purchased from Mr. Bhagirath Sharma (vehicle dealer).
2. That earlier the aforesaid vehicle was in the name of Mr. Sukh Sagar i.e. respondent no.4 and it was financed by Mahindra Finance CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 6 of 17 Ltd. The above said Bhagirath Sharma has purchased the said vehicle from the Mahindra finance Ltd and paid total amount of Rs. 7,09,800. Details of payments are herein below (Rs. 5,89,500/- to M/s Mahindra Finance and Rs. 1,10,000/- to Sukh Sagar).
3. Thereafter respondent no.2 purchased the said vehicle from Bhagirath Sharma by paying amount of Rs.9,30,000/-. (including Rs. 15,000/- for transfer charges). Rs. 2,65,000/- was in cash and Rs. 6,80,000/- was the loan from the Revisionist M/s Mannapuram Finance Ltd. The aforesaid loan was arranged by aforesaid Bhairath Sharma.
4. That the ownership of the vehicle was registered in the name of respondent no. 2 with Regional Transport Authority, Gurugram, Haryana after getting NOC from Mahindra Finance Ltd.
5. That the vehicle was hypothecated with Revisionist Company by availed the loan and start to pay the loan installments. On account of the financial constrain respondent no.2 was unable to repay the loan installments. During the aforesaid period Police officials of Paharganj Police station has taken the possession of the vehicle in question in lodge E-FIR No.030745/2022 u/s 379 of IPC PS- Paharganj and later Ld. ACMM 01, Central District, Delhi has released it to respondent no.3 on filling of superdari application and dismissed the superdari application of respondent no.2.
6. That the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the Hon'ble court of Ld. ACMM-01, Central District, Tishazari, Delhi is wrong as passed without appreciation qua the ownership status of vehicle in question.
7. That respondent no.3 is using & enjoy the vehicle in question without having the ownership and title.
8. That the respondent no.2 is not earning from the said vehicle as he is not in possession of it. But the loan liability of the answering respondent no.2 towards the petitioner is continuing.
8. Ld. Counsel for R-3 filed has filed written submissions in CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 7 of 17 the form of reply. It has been argued :-
(i) That the DCP reveals that vehicle's owner, as verified by the Regional Transport Office (RTO) in Gurugram, Haryana, is Parvesh Yadav, the son of Sh. Vijaypal Singh. According to the DCP's findings, the vehicle's registration details from the RTO indicate that the aforementioned vehicle is indeed registered under the name of Parvesh Yadav. However, it is noteworthy that the Registration Certificate (RC) for the vehicle was transferred to Parvesh Yadav after the registration of the First Information Report (FIR).
(ii) Respondent is the registered owner and Petitioner Company is hypothecator and it is recorded before the RTO Gurgaon. It is submitted that the report of DCP emphasizes a crucial point: at the time of FIR registration, the physical custody of the vehicle rested with the complainant/applicant, Sh, Kailash. This implies that the initial owner and accused, Sukh Sagar, allegedly stole the vehicle from the possession of complainant/Sh, Kailash Yadav.
iii. That following the deposit of the vehicle at Mahindra Finance, it was subsequently purchased by Parvesh Yadav, who then completed the RC transfer process, registering the vehicle in his name. This report filed by DCP summarizes the key details by shedding light on the ownership and transfer dynamics of the vehicle in question during the course of the investigation.
iv. That in the application for the release of the vehicle, Counsel for the applicant, Parvesh Yadav, has petitioned for the release of the vehicle to Parvesh Yadav on superdari. The counsel asserts that Parvesh Yadav is the registered owner of the vehicle, having acquired it from the original owner.
(v) That the vehicle in question lawfully in the possession of Kailash Yadav, who acquired it from the original owner. The submission asserts that the said vehicle unlawfully taken from the possession of applicant Kailash Yadav by the accused Sukh Sagar.
CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 8 of 17 vi. That on the other hand, Ld. APP for the State argues that the vehicle in question should be released under superdaari in favor of applicant Kailash Yadav. This recommendation is based on the assertion that, at the time of FIR registration, Kailash Yadav was in possession of the vehicle, and it was removed or stolen from his custody.
(vii) That additionally, the Ld. APP for the State contends that applicant Parvesh Yadav lacks standing to seek superdari release of the vehicle. This position is grounded in the Investigating Officer's report, indicating that Parvesh Yadav had already sold the vehicle to Mr. Bhagirath on 27.07 2023, and subsequently, Mr. Bhagirath transferred ownership to Mr. Javed through an affidavit dated 25.07.2023 considered.
(viii) The record reveals that the current FIR was filed based on the complaint of Mr. Kailash Yadav. He alleges that the vehicle in question purchased from the initial owner and accused, Sukh Saga was stolen from his possession by Sukh Sagar. Mr. Kailash Yadav asserts having acquired the mentioned vehicle for a total amount of Rs. 8,64,950. Of this, a partial payment of Rs. 4 lakhs was made in cash, and the remaining sum was to be settled through 17 monthly EMIs of Rs. 27,350 each. Notably, Mr. Kailash Yadav claims to have made payments for three months' installments. A crucial element in this case is an affidavit from Sukh Sagar regarding the sale of the vehicle to Mr. Kailash Yadav. The affidavit explicitly mentions the transfer of possession of the vehicle to Mr. Kailash Yadav. The records confirm the transfer of the Registration Certificate (RC) of the involved vehicle to applicant Parvesh Yadav after the FIR registration/Furthermore, it is emphasized that there is no basis for applicant Parvesh Yadav's request for the vehicle's release in his favor. The Investigating Officer's report indicates that Parvesh Yadav had already sold the vehicle to Mr. Bhagirath on 27,07.2023, who subsequently transferred ownership to Mr. Javed through an affidavit dated 25.07.2023.
CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 9 of 17
(ix) That in view of the submissions made by the parties, report filed by the IO and materials available on record, prima facie it is established that at the time of the registration of FIR, the physical possession of the vehicle was with the applicant Kailash Yadav. That keeping in view the overall as such facts and circumstances, to particular, to avoid the decay of the vehicle in question, the application of the applicant Kailash Yadav is allowed without prejudice to the right and contentions of either of the parties regarding the ownership of the vehicle in question. It was clarified that, in no way, the observations made by the Hon'ble Court should be read as opinion on the ownership of the vehicle. It is further submitted that the vehicle in question was released to R-3 on furnishing a superdarinama in sum of Rs. 8 lacs to the satisfaction of IO/SHO. He was directed to furnish security in a sum of Rs. 1 lac in the form of FD alongwith the superdarinama. IO was directed to issue direction to the concerned branch Manager for non transaction of the said FDR without prior permission of the Court. Further, directions were also issued to the concerned Transport Authority regarding non-transaction of the vehicle in question without prior permission of the Court. It is submitted that the IO/SHO was also directed to take the necessary photographs duly authenticated and certified and a detailed punchintima be also prepared before such release of abovementioned vehicle. The necessary photographs were directed to be taken at the cost of the applicant. The SHO was further directed to obtain the signature endorsement of the applicant on the photographs of the abovesaid vehicle. It was directed that the SHO shall keep on record the permanent address of the applicant and Kailash Yadav, his identity proof, his address proof and phone number.
9. This Court has heard the arguments from both the sides and perused the record.
10. Since this revision petition pertains to the release of case CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 10 of 17 property u/s. 451 Cr. P.C., it is pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manjeet Singh Vs. State, CRL. M.C. No. 4485/2013 dated 10.09.2014, wherein the Hon'ble Court taking note of the fact that it is common knowledge that outside every police station in Delhi, a number of vehicles remain parked and are getting rusted, for the reason that either no rightful owner has come up to claim its possession or still in some cases, the Court has thought it appropriate to not to direct its release. The Hon'ble Court observed that it is clear that the major reason for delay in trial of criminal cases can be easily circumvented if at the time of releasing of the case property/articles, certain steps are taken by the Courts concerned and thereby obliterating the necessity for production of the case property articles during the course of trial.
11. In Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat , AIR 2003 SC 638, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that the Courts should exercise their powers u/s. 451 Cr. P.C. expeditiously and judicially regarding disposal of case property pending trial. The relevant excerpt of the judgment is reproduced below:-
"5. Section 451 clearly empowers the Court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as--
(1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial;
(2) to order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary; (3) if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, to dispose of the same.
xxx xxx xxx CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 11 of 17
7. In our view, the powers under Section 451 CrPC should be exercised expeditiously and judiciously. It would serve various purposes, namely:
1. owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2. court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3. if the proper panchnama before handing over possession of the article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and
4. this jurisdiction of the court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles."
12. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manjeet Singh case (Supra) observed as follows :-
"The non-compliance of the directions of the Supreme Court have resulted in the blocking of the valuable area inside as well as around the police stations and the public places with the vehicles which have been reduced to junk and have thus resulted in loss of national wealth. Unnecessary retention of properties have also led to theft and misappropriations. No measures have been taken by the police for safety of these vehicles. The vehicles kept in the open spaces are also prone to fast and natural decay on account of weather conditions."
13. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manjeet Singh case (Supra) summarized the principles of law and observed as follows:-
"54. The properties seized by the police during investigation or trial have to be produced before the competent Court within one week of the seizure and the Court has to expeditiously pass an order for its custody in terms of the directions of the Supreme Court in Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil v. State of Mysore (supra), Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (supra 1), Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (supra 2) and General Insurance Council v. State of A.P. (supra).
55. The Court has to ensure that the property seized by CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 12 of 17 the police should not be retained in the custody of the Court or of the police for any time longer than what is absolutely necessary and in any case, for not more than one month.
56. If the property is subject to speedy and natural decay or if it is otherwise expedient to do so, the Court may, after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary, order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of.
57. The expeditious and judicious disposal of a case property would ensure that the owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation; Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody; and onerous cost to the public exchequer towards the cost of storage and custody of the property would be saved."
14. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi prescribed the time limit for release of the case property in following terms:-
"58. Whenever a property is seized by the police, it is the duty of the seizing officer/SHO to produce it before the concerned Magistrate within one week of the seizure and the Court, after due notice to the concerned parties, is required to pass an appropriate order for its disposal within a period of one month."
15. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with regard to the vehicles laid down the following guidelines for their release :-
"68. Vehicles involved in an offence may be released to the rightful owner after preparing detailed panchnama; taking photographs of the vehicle; valuation report; and a security bond.
69. The photographs of the vehicle should be attested and countersigned by the complainant, accused as well as by the person to whom the custody is handed over.
70. The production of the vehicle should not be insisted upon during the trial. The panchnama and photographs along with the valuation report should suffice for the purposes of evidence.
71. Return of vehicles and permission for sale thereof should be the general norm rather than the exception.
CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 13 of 17
72. If the vehicle is insured, the Court shall issue notice to the owner and the insurance company for disposal of the vehicle. If there is no response or the owner declines to take the vehicle or informs that it has claimed insurance/released its right in the vehicle to the insurance company and the insurance company fails to take possession of the vehicle, the vehicle may be ordered to be sold in auction.
73. If a vehicle is not claimed by the accused, owner, or the Insurance company or by a third person, it may be ordered to be sold by auction."
16. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also laid down general guidelines regarding the case property which are as follows:-
"86. The Court may impose any other condition which may be necessary in the facts of each case.
87. The Court shall hear all the concerned parties including the accused, complainant, Public Prosecutor and/or any third party concerned before passing the order. The Court shall also take into consideration the objections, if any, of the accused.
88. When the property has any evidentiary value, it is to be kept intact and the condition of non-alienation is imposed to ensure its production during the course of evidence for the purpose of marking as a material object. However, when the property has no evidentiary value and only the value of the property is to be properly secured for passing of final order under Section 452 Cr. P.C., the necessity of keeping such properties intact by imposing onerous conditions, prohibiting its alienation or transfer would not be necessary in law.
89. The production of property which has evidentiary value during evidence is a part of a fair trial. With the advanced technology, it is not necessary that the original of the property inevitably has to be preserved for the purpose of evidence in the changed context of times. The reception of secondary evidence is permitted in law. The techniques of photography and photo copying are far advanced and fully developed. Movable property of any nature can be a subject matter of photography and taking necessary photographs of all the features of the property clearly is not a impossible task in photography and photo copying. Besides, the mahazar could be drawn clearly CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 14 of 17 describing the features and dimensions of the movable properties which are subject matters of criminal trial.
90. Irrespective of the fact whether the properties have evidentiary value or not, it is not necessary that the original of the property has to be kept intact without alienation. As suggested above, the photography or photostat copy of the property can be taken and made a part of the record duly certified by the Magistrate at the time when the interim custody of the property is handed over to the claimant. In the event of the original of the property not produced in the evidence, photograph could be used as secondary evidence during the course of evidence. Ultimately, while passing final orders, it is only the value of the property that becomes a prime concern for the Court. If a person to whom the interim custody is granted, is not entitled to the property or its value and if some other person is held to be entitled to have the property or its value by taking necessary bonds and security from the person to whom interim custody is granted, the value could be recovered and made payable to the person entitled to."
17. The letter and spirit of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sunderbhai case (Supra) and the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manjeet Singh case (Supra) is that the case properties must be dealt with u/s. 451 Cr. P.C. expeditiously and the return of vehicles should be the general norm rather than the exception.
18. In the present case, the ld. Trial Court had released the vehicle on superdari to R-3 on the observation that at the time of registration of FIR, R-3 was in possession of the vehicle and without deciding the question of ownership, the vehicle was released to him.
19. Admittedly, R-3 was never the registered owner of the vehicle. R-3 may have taken the vehicle from the registered owner and it was his duty to inform the CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 15 of 17 registering authority and to get the vehicle registered in his name if he had purchased the vehicle but he had not done so to his own peril. It is needless to mention that without registration of a vehicle being transferred in his name, the said vehicle being driven on road is in contravention of Motor Vehicles Act. There is great sanctity attached to the registered ownership of the vehicle as the registered owner of the vehicle is always under the liability if the vehicle is met with an accident. Thus, the release of the vehicle to R-3 to allow him to ply it on road without his registered ownership causes legal liability risk to the actual registered owner. Even otherwise, it is not the case of R-3 that after purchase of the vehicle, he had duly paid all the due installments to the financier.
20. It is no doubt that at the time of deciding the release of vehicle on superdari, the question of ownership need not necessarily be decided but at the same time, the balance of convenience is also to be seen.
21. The impugned vehicle in the present case has not been seized by the police from the possession of R-3. Ordinarily, the seized vehicle is released to the person from whose possession the police has seized it or to the person who is the registered owner of the vehicle as per the Transport Authority.
22. Admittedly, R-2 is the registered owner of the vehicle as per RTO record and the revisionist company is undisputedly the hypothecator of the vehicle. In the written submissions, the R-2 has admitted that he had failed to pay CR No. 56/2024 M/s. Manappuram Finance Ltd. vs. State and Ors. Page No. 16 of 17 the outstanding installments to the revisionist company and in the prayer clause, it is prayed that the vehicle may either be released to him or the revisionist company.
23. R-2 is the recorded owner but with the condition to fulfill the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement. Admittedly, he is not paying the outstanding installments to the revisionist company and therefore, the revisionist company is the rightful person for the interim custody of the vehicle.
24. For the foregoing reasons, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the ld. Trial Court is hereby set aside. The ld. Trial Court shall direct R-3 to surrender the vehicle before the IO/SHO concerned and the ld. Trial Court shall also pass appropriate order for release of the said vehicle before the revisionist company on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit.
25. Copy of this order be sent to the ld. Trial Court for information and necessary action.
26. Copy of this order be also given to the ld. Counsel for the revisionist.
27. Revision file be consigned to Record Room.
Pronounced in open court
on 18th December, 2024
Digitally signed (SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI)
SUSHIL by SUSHIL
ANUJ TYAGI
Additional Sessions Judge-04
ANUJ Date: Central, Delhi, THC, Delhi.
TYAGI 14:23:03 +0530
2024.12.18
No comments:
Post a Comment