Point of Law: In case where the accused disputes that he is not involved in the alleged incident and no article was found from him then such endorsement be taken on the photograph.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 28.12.2020 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval, Gir Somnath in Criminal Misc. Application No. 414 of 2020, whereby, the application filed under Section 451 of Cr.P.C to get custody and permission to sell Muddamal Vehicle being Maruti Suzuki Ertiga car bearing registration No. GJ-01-KR-6008 was partly allowed and permission to sell the vehicle was rejected.

2. Heard Mr. Chetankumar V. Darji, learned advocate appearing for the applicant, Mrs. Krina Calla, the learned APP for the respondent No. 1 State and Mr. Mayank R. Chavda, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2.

3. Brief facts of the present applicant is that the applicant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The applicant is a non-banking finance company governed under the rules and regulations of the Reserve Bank of India. The applicant company is engaged in the business of providing various types of financial loans to its customers which includes auto loan for purchase of old/new vehicle.

3.1 The respondent no. 2 had availed a loan facility for the purpose of purchasing vehicle i.e. Maruti Suzuki Ertiga car bearing registration No. GJ-01-KR-6008 and accordingly, loan of Rs.3,40,000/- was sanctioned and as per the terms of the loan, the respondent No. 2 had to repay the entire loan amount in 24 monthly installments and the monthly installment was Rs.17,296/-. The hypothication agreement was executed by the parties and same is reflected in the registration certificate of vehicle issued by RTO authority. The respondent No. 2 declared defaulter as failed to pay the loan amount.

3.2 The vehicle Maruti Suzuki seized by the Veraval Police for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC as the car was used in the alleged offense and accordingly the Investigating Officer seized the vehicle and produced it before the Court.

3.3 The applicant company moved an application under Section 451 of the Cr.P.C. to get the possession of the vehicle and sought permission to sell the muddamal vehicle. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties, released the vehicle and did not grant the permission to sell the vehicle.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the applicant has preferred present Criminal Revision Application.

5. Learned advocate Mr. C.V. Darji appearing for the applicant would submit that the learned trail Court has rejected the prayer of applicant for grant permission to sell the vehicle is in clear violation of the principles laid down in Smt. Basava Kom Dyamogouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore and Another, AIR 1977 SC 1749, Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SC 638, General Insurance Council and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 768 in which the Supreme Court has held that the photographs can be used as secondary evidence during trial and it is not necessary to produce the seized property at the time of trial.

6. The learned counsel Mr. C.V. Darji, would further submit that the learned trial Court failed to consider the facts that the applicant is a finance company and doing the business of availing loan facility to his customer and if the permission to sell is not granted, the company has to bear additional expenses towards maintenance, storage, insurance, tax and safety of vehicle. It would further submit that the respondent no. 2 has defaulted in making payment and breached the terms and conditions of the loan agreement and therefore, company is legally entitled to recover its due from sell of the vehicle.

7. In view of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned is order required to be set aside qua condition no. 5 and seeks direction to grant the permission to sell the vehicle.

8. On the other hand, Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP submitted that there is no ill