AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The appellant has challenged the order rejecting his application filed under Section 457 r/w Section 452 of Cr.P.C. for interim custody of the vehicle i.e., Maruti Omni Car bearing registration No. KA-20-A-5774.
The facts reveal that the second respondent herein-Smt. Sulthana Iqbal was an accused in Spl. Case No. 18/2010 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
In the course of the investigation, the aforesaid vehicle owned by her was seized and after the conclusion of the trial, the second respondent was acquitted of the charge vide judgment and order dated 13.12.2010 in Spl. Case No. 18/2010.
The appellant filed an application under Section 457 r/w Section 452 of Cr.P.C. requesting for interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that he is the financier and as the second respondent has committed a default in the payment of loan advanced to purchase the said vehicle, he has right to take possession of the said vehicle. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court under the impugned order. Aggrieved by which, the present appeal is filed.
The application-I.A. No. 1/2015 has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant seeking permission to produce certain documents.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned HCGP.
The appellant has produced the hypothecation agreement at document No. 1 dated 15.09.2008. Under which, the vehicle bearing registration No. KA-20-A-5774 purchased by the second respondent with the loan facility offered by the appellant and the vehicle was hypothecated. The appellant has also produced the registration certificate and it reveals that the second respondent acquired the ownership of the vehicle by purchasing it with a loan facility and the second respondent has executed the hypothecation agreement as stated above. Under clause 6(B) of the said hypothecation agreement, the appellant is entitled to take possession of the vehicle, in case, if there is default in payment of the installments.
It is case of the appellant that the second respondent has not paid any installments and she is a defaulter. Thereby, the appellant got a right to take possession of the vehicle in question. But unfortunately, the appellant has not produced hypothecation agreement before the Court below.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Vs. Khaishiulla Khan, , wherein this Court has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 451 of Cr.P.C. and the Court was under the opinion that a defaulter cannot continue in the possession of the vehicle and the financier has right to take possession.
Anyhow, as the appellant did not produce the document i.e., hypothecation agreement, it appears that the trial Court has taken into consideration the said aspect. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, I am of the opinion that when the second respondent despite the conclusion of the trial and having been acquitted did not object for grant of possession to the appellant and did not take any interest to take custody of the vehicle, it appears proper to remit the matter back to the trial Court to consider the document produced by the appellant i.e., hypothecation agreement relating to the possession of the vehicle in question.
In the facts and circumstances, the application-I.A. No. 1/2015 filed is allowed. The appellant is permitted to produce the documents.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to consider the application of the appellant. After producing the document relating to the hypothecation agreement and auxiliary documents, the trial Court shall dispose of the application filed by the appellant in accordance with law.