2002 (3) Crimes 322
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
R.C. Kathuria, J.
M/s. Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. - Petitioner
versus
Ramesh Kumar - Respondent
Crl. Revision No. 486 of 2001
Decided on 9-5-2002

IMPORTANT POINT
Where vehicle is in possession of hirer under hire-purchase agreement and clause in agreement empowered financier to take possession of vehicle and vehicle came to be seized by police in a criminal case, financier would be entitled to interim custody under Section 451, Cr. P.C. when he claimed that hirer had already committed breach of agreement.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - Interim custody of vehicle subject matter of hire purchase agreement – Entitlement of hirer or of financier - Respondent got the vehicle financed by petitioner - Vehicle seized by police in a criminal case got registered by respondent against third party Respondent had already gone defaulter in repayment of installments under hire-purchase agreement and clause in the agreement authorised petitioner to take possession of vehicle - Magistrate allowed interim custody of vehicle in favour of petitioner - Sessions court set aside the order in revision and allowed interim custody of vehicle in favour of respondent - Revision Magistrate was duty bound to examine terms of hire-purchase agreement - Since respondent hirer had not become owner by clearing all the installments under hire-purchase agreement, right of financier could not be taken away under the agreement - Magistrate rightly considered all those aspects and Sessions Court said nothing in the order as to the basis on which Magistrate had gone wrong Impugned order was liable to be seta side and that of Magistrate was to be restored.

       Held: The controversy in the present case, as per the stand of the petitioner, is that respondent Ramesh Kumar cannot be allowed to frustrate the right of the petitioner to take possession of the vehicle in question when under the terms of the hire purchase agreement he has committed default in payment of the amount of installments, as is evident from the terms of hire-purchase agreement dated 27.2.1998 coupled with the schedule of payment as detailed in the first and second schedule annexed with the agreement placed on record by the petitioner. It is for that reason that the petitioner had authorised Chhotu Ram to re-possess the vehicle from Rakesh Kumar and copy of authority letter dated 19.5.2000 has been placed on record.

       At this stage notice has to be taken of the provisions of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act wherein the word "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle has been registered and where such person is a minor. the guardian of such minor and in relation to motor vehicle which is the subject matter of hire-purchase agreement or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement". The above-noted provisions clearly spell out that the word "owner" has been given an expanded and wider meaning for the purpose of the Act because it makes a person who is in possession of the vehicle in question which is subject-matter of hire-purchase agreement also the owner for the purpose of the Act. The net consequence of these provisions would be that despite there being hire purchase agreement the person in possession under the hire-purchase agreement will be entitled to move an application under Section 410f the Act so as to enable him to get his name entered as registered owner in the certificate of Registration. The object of enabling these provisions under the Act of 1988 appears to recognize the hirer as an owner not only to retain the Registration Certificate in respect of the vehicle which is the subject-matter of the hire-purchase agreement but also to help him to obtain the fitness certificate get the vehicle insured route permit etc. the necessary compliance of which is required to be done under the 1988 Act so as to run the vehicle without any hindrance from any quarter. But that does not mean that he becomes the absolute owner because as per conditions of the hire-purchase agreement the hirer has to fulfill the conditions laid down therein and to pay the amount of installments so as to become the absolute owner in terms of the hire-purchase agreement. Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Court to pass an interim order for the custody and disposal of the property pending enquiry or trial and the property regarding which the offence appears to have been committed or appears to have been used for commission of offence. In this case as the claim for custody of the vehicle was put up by the hirer Ramesh Kumar and the financier-petitioner the Magistrate, was duty-bound to examine the terms of the hire-purchase" agreement because a definite stand was taken by the financier that the default in payment of the installment amount has been made by the hirer and merely because the Registration Certificate has been issued in the name of the hirer who would but for this hire-purchase agreement have been entitled to possession of the vehicle in question would not in any manner take away the right of the financier under the hire-purchase agreement to obtain interim custody of the vehicle in question because by that time the hirer had not become the absolute owner of the property. The Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has rightly taken into consideration that in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question it was also mentioned that the same has been hypothecated with the petitioner financier and the absolute owner of the vehicle in question under the hire purchase agreement was the financier who had the right to take possession of the vehicle because of the default committed by the hirer. All the circumstances were not taken into account by the Sessions Judge, Bhiwani, who has said nothing in the order as to the basis on which he found that the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate has gone wrong in ordering the release of the vehicle in question on Superdari to the financier. (Para 11)

       Result: Revision allowed.