A financier holding a vehicle under a hypothecation agreement is considered the 'real owner' and is entitled to claim interim custody (supurdnama) of the said vehicle seized in a criminal case, provided adequate security is furnished to prevent loss of value through deterioration.

C A V Order

1. The applicant has filed the instant Criminal Revision under Section

397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 10-3-2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Kanker in connection with Crime No 214 of 2020 registered at Police Station Kanker whereby the application filed by the applicant for seeking interim custody of Truck bearing registration No. CG 04-MD-6011 on supurdnama has been rejected.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant which is a finance company had financed Rs.17,00,000/- to the respondent No.2 namely Akhilesh Kumar Pathak for purchase of Eicher Truck Model 11.14/2018 bearing registration No. CG 04 MD 6011 through agreement arrived at between the borrower i.e. respondent No.2 and financier i.e. applicant vide agreement dated 29-03-2018. As per the terms of agreement till the finance is cleared by the borrower, the finance company will be the owner and the said vehicle will be hypothecated with the finance company. As per the agreement monthly installment facility was provided and since last two years there was defalcation in payment of monthly installments.

3. It is also the case of the applicant that the Finance Company was unable to get information about the vehicle and after various effects, it has been informed to them that the said vehicle has been seized in Criminal Case for transporting Narcotic drug illegally. It is also case of the applicant that till the finance is cleared by the borrower, the finance company will be the owner of the said vehicle, therefore, they are entitled to take the seized vehicle on supurdnama as the vehicle is kept in open place for more than one year, the condition of the seized vehicle is deteriorating which is causing loss to the applicant. Accordingly they have moved an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C for releasing the seized vehicle on supurdnama before the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act). It is also case of the applicant that the learned lower Court failed to see that the applicant is ready and willing to fulfill the terms and conditions of the release order so imposed by the learned lower Court, as such prayed for releasing the seized vehicle on supurdnama on 06.12.2021.

4. Learned Special Judge vide its order dated 10-3-2022 has rejected the said application and recorded its finding that the vehicle was involved in commission of illegal transportation of narcotic drugs and said contraband drugs were seized from it and the accused Raj Kumar Chouhan and Vijay Kumar were arrested and tried under Section 20(b) of the NDPS Act. Learned Special Judge has also recorded its finding that neither the applicant submitted registration certificate nor authorization letter of owner of the vehicle as in the authorization certificate name of Akilesh Kumar Pathak has been registered as owner, accordingly it has rejected the same. This order is being assailed by the applicant by filing this criminal revision.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that learned trial Court has failed to consider that under the hypothecation agreement, the