SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions seek the right of sale of vehicles which have been placed in the custody of the petitioners, under orders of the lower courts.

(2.) In Crl. O.P. No. 5278 of 2007, the petitioner is a non-banking finance company, which had financed the purchase of a 'Swaraj Pickup Light Commercial Vehicle', under a hypothecated loan agreement. Upon the borrower making defaults in the repayment of the loan, the petitioner proceeded to seize the vehicle, at which instance the petitioner learnt that the hypothecated vehicle had been seized by the police, in connection with the Crime No. 1135 of 2006 for offences under Section 4(1)(aa) & 4(1)(g) on the file of the first respondent in Crl. O.P. No. 5278 of 2007. The petitioner filed Crl.M.P. No. 2100 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri praying for return of the vehicle and seeking an order of sale thereof. The borrower/owner of the vehicle had, under an affidavit acknowledged his inability to repay the loan amount and consented to the return of the vehicle to the petitioner. The learned Judicial Magistrate directed return of the vehicle to the petitioner interalia on condition that, 'the petitioner execute a bond in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-, provide a surety for the likesum and stipulated that the vehicle be not sold, subjected to encumbrance, altered in any manner and without destruction of any evidence'. This petition is filed against such order. The owner of the vehicle has been impleaded as the second respondent under orders of this Court and though notice through court has not been served upon him, proof of service of private notice has been filed before this Court.

(3.) The petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 9744 of 2010, who is the owner of a Chevrolet Tavera Car, bearing Regn. No. TN-20-AP-0691 and was using the same as a contract carriage, informs that his vehicle was seized by the respondent police on 20.01.2009 in connection with Cr. No. 36 of 2009, registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 363 and 506(i) IPC. The petitioner informs that he is in no way involved in the commission of offences, was not arrayed as an accused in the case and that he had approached the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram in C.M.P. No. 287 of 2009 seeking interim custody of the vehicle. Under orders dated 27.01.2009 such court had directed return of the vehicle to the petitioner interalia on condition that he shall execute a bond of Rs. 5 lakhs, shall not alter or change or sell the vehicle and shall produce the same, as and when required. The petitioner's vehicle was ill-fated in that on 03.11.2009, while in motion the engine caught fire and the entire front portion of the vehicle was charred and damaged. A complaint was immediately filed in respect of such incident with the Pallikkaranai Police Station. A certificate informing the position, was issued by the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the police station and the same was sent to the respondent police along with a detailed representation dated 26.11.2009. On finding that the cost of repairing the vehicle was way beyond that owed to the financier of the vehicle and that even the reimbursement by the insurers would not cover the deficit, the petitioner had approached this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 27441 of 2009 towards obtaining permission to sell the vehicle. This court had dismissed such petition as withdrawn on 06.01.2010 granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy before the learned Magistrate who had imposed the condition that the vehicle be not sold. The petitioner approached the trial court in Crl.M.P. No. 737 of 2010 towards obtaining permission to sell the vehicle, which was dismissed on 04.03.2010, interalia on the reasoning that the main case was pending trial for offences under Sections 341, 363, 323, 506(ii) IPC and the vehicle had been used for abducting one of the witnesses in the case, that the examination of the witnesses had not commenced, that the vehicle was necessary for the purpose of identification and had to be marked as a material object in the case and that the conduct of the trial would be affected thereby. It is against such an order that the petition has been filed before this Court.