KOTAK MAHINDRA PRIME LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition is filed to challenge condition No.2(i) and (ii) of the order dated 8-1-2015 made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Aurangabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.188/2014. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) The petitioner is a finance company and it had given finance for purchasing of sports car to one of the accused from CR No.I-187/2014 registered in Jawahar Nagar Police Station Aurangabad. The crime was registered for offences under sections 420, 467, 471, 406, 120-B etc. of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the M.P.I.D. Act. There are allegations against accused from whom the vehicle is recovered and seized, that he deceived public at large and he collected money and by using part of this money, he purchased the aforesaid sports car. In view of nature of allegations against the accused it is not difficult to observe that whatever money the accused used for purchasing the car was the stolen property of which definition can be found in section 410 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) In view of these circumstances this Court asked the finance company to give particulars regarding the mode of payment under which the vehicle was purchased. Today, learned counsel has produced on the record the particulars showing that loan of Rs.18.69 lakh was given by the petitioner for purchase of the vehicle valued at Rs.23.08. The accused had made payment of Rs.4,39,001/- which was down payment but the payment was made to the dealer. For that the accused had deposited the amount directly with the dealer and the petitioner made payment to the dealer. As per the statement and the written statement in respect of the particulars produced on the record, the accused had paid total EMI of Rs.7,21,317/- towards repayment of the aforesaid loan. From these circumstances it can be said that the stolen property of Rs.7,21,317/- has gone into the hands of the finance company, the petitioner. It is public money and the knowledge of the present petitioner has no concern when the point of recovery of stolen property comes in a criminal Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had given loan and it is only recovering the loan amount. This submission is not at at acceptable.