S.L. Finance vs The State

G.M. Akbar Ali, J.—The petition filed to set aside the order dated 20.03.2007 passed in Crl.R.C. No. 17 of 2006 on the file of the learned

Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi and return Maruti Van bearing Registration No. TN-02/F-8569 to the petitioner.

The petitioner is the third party to the proceedings in S.T.C. No. 1940 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam. A

case in Crime No. 296 of 2004 has been registered by the respondent police for alleged offence under Sections 4(2), 8(b) 1 of I.T.P. Act and

also the said vehicle was seized and it was confiscated to the Government. The petitioner is a financier who had financed the vehicle and the vehicle

is hypothecated to the petitioner''s company. Therefore, he filed a revision petition in Crl.R.C. No. 17 of 2006 before the learned Principal

Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi for the return of the vehicle and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred

the present petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order.

The case of the petitioner in Crl.R.C. No. 17 of 2006 is that the petitioner is the power of attorney agent of S.L. Finance, Chennai, who had

financed for the purchase of the said vehicle and therefore, they claimed right and title for the said vehicle. The learned Judicial Magistrate

disallowed the claim of the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 6885 of 2004. The learned Judicial Magistrate found that the vehicle was only hypothecated

to the financier therefore, it would not amount to a right over the property.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the vehicle was purchased under hire purchase agreement and therefore, the Finance

Company is the absolute owner of the vehicle and they are entitled to claim the ownership of the vehicle as they have not indulged any offence.

The revision petitioner before the trial court is one Joseph and the petitioner before this Court is one S.L. Finance, rep. by its power of attorney

X. Joseph. The copy of the hypothecation agreement, filed along with the petition, did not disclose the name of the owner. It is an agreement

signed only by the hirer and there is no counter signature by the owner of the vehicle. The copy of the registration certificate discloses that initially

the owner of the vehicle was one D. Sarangapani and then one Jesu Gana Antony, who is the present owner of the vehicle. The insurance policy is

in the name of one S.V. Gopalakrishnan and nowhere it is stated that the petitioner, who is alleged to have represented by X. Joseph, is the owner

of the said vehicle and the ownership has not been established.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of this Court reported in 2009(1) TLNJ 76 (Criminal) (Chankaran v. The State Rep.

by S.I. of Police, Karungalpalayam Police Station, Erode District) wherein this Court has held as follows:

Accused admitted in the offence registered u/s 4(2)(c) and 8(b) of the act - The owner of the car filed petition for return of the car on the ground

that he does not have any knowledge about the use of the car for the purpose of offence - trial Court dismissed the petition - Initiation of

proceedings for confiscation of the care directed - Appeal filed in additional Sessions Judge dismissed - Criminal Revision in High Court by the

owner - Held - The nexus between the owner of the car and accused not established - No provision found in the act for confiscation of the vehicle

- Criminal revision allowed.

In the above referred case, the ownership has been established but the nexus between the owner of the vehicle and the accused has not

established.

In the instant case, the ownership itself has not been established and therefore, the petitioner are not entitled for to set aside the order dated

20.03.2007 passed in Crl.R.C. No. 17 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi for the return the vehicle Maruti Van

bearing Registration No. TN-02/F-8569 to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.