JUDGMENT - V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. :---The petitioner has approached this Court by a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 invoking the inherent powers of this Court and in the process challenged the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 6-12-1993 and 11-12-1993. They prayed that the custody of the Tata Diesel Vehicle in question should be handed over in their favour and their application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in their behalf be allowed.

2. A short resume of the facts would highlight the controversy.

The petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act and deals in Tata Diesel Vehicles. There is a Hire Purchase Scheme of the Company. The non-applicant No. 2 - Awatarsingh Niranjansingh Saini was a person who was interested in hire purchase of Tata diesel truck. He, therefore, entered into an agreement of hire purchase with the Company. He was to pay the instalments as fixed in the Hire Purchase Agreement. It is an admitted case that in pursuance of this agreement, the vehicle was put at the disposal of the non-applicant No. 2 through the dealer of the petitioner Company - M/s. Jaika Motors Limited and the non-applicant No. 2 started plying this vehicle. It is also an admitted case that the said vehicle was registered with the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur with Registration No. MP 23-B 7230. It is also an admitted case that the hirer non-applicant No. 2 started making payments of the monthly instalment to the Company. The nature of the agreement was that after the full payment of all these instalments, the hirer had the choice either to return the truck or to claim its ownership. It is also one of the terms in the agreement that on failure on the part of the non-applicant to pay the said instalments, the Company had the right to take the possession of the concerned vehicle. It is also an admitted case that out of the total liability of Rs. 5,011,000/- approximately, about half the liability is already paid. We shall consider the terms and conditions of this agreement lateron at the appropriate place, but to complete the summation of facts, it will be enough to state that the non-applicant No. 2 defaulted and failed to pay the instalments and as a result of that the company decided to take the possession of the truck. It seems that the Company used to get this job done through one company called Y.R. Pathan. One Hanubhai Solonki was an employee of this Company.

3. On 2-11-1993, this Hanubhai Solonki gave a report to the Police Station, Lakadganj, Nagpur in which he reported that Y.R. Pathan Company had decided to take the possession of truck No. MP 23/B 7230 as the owner of the truck had defaulted to make the payments. He claims that they had seized few vehicles and went to Bilaspur on 29-10-1993 and that on 2-11-1993 they had started from Raipur to Nagpur. He further claims that near Bhandara City they saw concerned truck No. MP 23/B 7230 near Forest Check Post and since that truck was in the list of the vehicles to be seized, the representative talked to the driver of the said truck and told him that since the dues were outstanding against the truck, the said truck was being seized. The name of this driver was Jagjitsingh. It is further claimed in the said report that the seizure was effected at Bhandara itself and the signature of Jagjitsingh was obtained in token of the possession. It is further claimed that the truck was being driven to Nagpur and they left Bhandara at about 4 OClock. It was claimed that when the said truck came near the octroi post, 4/5 persons were standing near the octroi post with sticks in their hands. They stopped the truck. Suleman Desai who was driving the truck, brought it to hault and taking advantage of that, the driver of that truck got down. Apprehending danger to their lives it was claimed that the concerned persons fled to Nagpur. However, they were chased by the truck bearing No. MP 23/B 1650. Not only this, but some other per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document