SUNITHA MEHATA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has arisen in this way: The first petitioner is the financier. The second petitioner is her power agent. According to the petitioners, one Srikandan of Muchanthivilai vila house, Ayinkamam, Parasala Post, Trivandrum District, Kerala State purchased a lorry bearing Registration No.KL6-3943 under a Hire-Purchase Agreement with the first petitioner. The agreement is in vogue. While so, the respondent herein seized the lorry on 07-04-1999 on the ground that the lorry was allegedly used for transporting spirit, regarding which a case in Crime No. 48 of 1999 was registered by the respondent. The lorry was produced before the judicial Magistrate, Nenguneri under P.R.O. 233 of 1999. According to the petitioners, they are the financiers, there is an endorsement of Hire Purchase Agreement in the R.C. Book, the hirer had committed default in payment of instalments, the vehicle is now lying in the police station, it is subjected to decay, some of the tyres of the lorry have already become useless, the hirer had not come forward to take claim of interim custody, now the lorry is gathering dust, and the first petitioner being the owner as per the Hire Purchase Agreement, the interim custody should be granted to the petitioners. The petitioners sought for interim custody of the vehicle by filing an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri in Crl.M.P.No. 1005 of 2000. The learned Judicial Magistrate rejected the request of the petitioners. The petitioners preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No. 13 of 2000 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, who passed a one line order to the effect that the revision petitioners are not entitled to the interim custody of the lorry bearing Registration No. K.L-6-3943. The criminal revision is dismissed. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the petitioners have come forward with the instant Criminal Original Petition contending that the revisional Court had not looked into the aspect that the petitioners are the dejure owners of the lorry as per the endorsement made in the Hire Purchase Agreement, that they are entitled to the interim custody of the lorry.

(2.) Heard both the sides. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which recites as under:

(3.) The learned Counsel also cited was authorities reported in Jagadeesan vs. State of Karnataka and Rajkumar N. Jain vs. Inspector of Police, Madras. The first decision reported in 1978 Crl.L.J. 1546 relates to a case where one George entered into a Hire Purchase Agreement with the finance company, that R.C. also contained an endorsement regarding the hire purchase, that later. George died, but his wife continued to pay the instalments, that later she committed default. The finance company took possession of the vehicle and sent intimation to the R.T.O. that there was default in regard to the payment of instalments as per the Hire Purchase Agreement and the finance company had secured possession of the vehicle. Meanwhile one Alexander, brother of late George, gave a complaint stating that the Car had been stolen. Then the Car was seized from the possession of the financier and produced into the Court. There were rival claims from the financier and also from Alexander, brother of the late owner. In that case, a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court held that the owner of the vehicle would include a person who is in possession of the concerned vehicle which is subject matter of Hire Purchase Agreement and ordered returned of the vehicle to the financier as the vehicle was seized from his custody.