UNITED FINANCE SYNDICATE REPRESENTED BY ASHOK KUMAR METHE Vs. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, GINGEE AND ANOTHER.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS financier -cum -owner, the petitioner herein laid claim for the return of a motor cycle bearing registration number T.N.J. 194 which was seized by the Police in connection with a prohibition case. The motor cycle was seized, because two persons were caught carrying a large quantity of brandy bottles in the motor cycle on 4th July 1975. When those two persons were questioned, they stated that they were carrying the brandy bottles at the behest of one A.K. Sathar, the owner of the motor cycle. All the three persons were prosecuted for contravention of the Prohibition Act. While the driver and the pillion -rider of the motor cycle admitted the offence, A.K. Sathar denied the offence, but nevertheless, he was found guilty and convicted under the Prohibition Act. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner herein moved the trial court for return of the motor cycle stating that he was the owner and Sathar was only the hirer and as such, the vehicle did not belong to him. The Trial Magistrate dismissed the application and an appeal to the Sessions Judge did not meet with success. Hence, the present petition to this Court,

(2.) IN support of his claim for the motor cycle, the petitioner urged that the vehicle was subjected to a hire -purchase agreement, Ex. C -2, dated 15th May 1975 and as per the terms of the agreement, the hirer, viz., Sathar had to pay a sum of Rs. 300/ - per mensem for a period of twelve months, he was entitled to transfer of ownership of the vehicle only after payment of all the twelve instalments and since the motor cycle was seized by the authorities in about two months time after the hire -purchase agreement was entered into, the Courts below were not entitled to treat the vehicle as that of Sathar and order confiscation of the same. Johar & Company v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, (1965) 26 S.T.C. 213 and Instalment Supply Ltd. v. Sales Tax Officer, 34 (1974) S.T.C. 65 were cited by the petitioner's counsel to contend that a hire -purchase agreement has two elements, viz., element of bailment and element of sale and that the element of sale fructifies only when the option is exercised by the intending purchaser after fulfilling the terms of the agreement. Placing reliance on the ratio in these cases, the petitioner's counsel contended that since Sathar had not paid all the instalments due under the agreement and exercised his option to buy, the vehicle continued to be the property of the petitioner and cannot, therefore, be treated as a confessable item of property.

(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, the petition fails and will stand dismissed.