ORAL ORDER

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Rule. Ms.Nisha Thakor, learned Additional Public Prosecutor wavies service of Rule on behalf of the respondent State. Though served, respondent No.2 has not entered appearance.

3. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner has prayed for direction, for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Valsad in Criminal Revision Application No.101 of 2015 and has thereby prayed that the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 be allowed.

4. Brief facts, as emerging from the record, are as under:

4.1 The petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of banking and providing loan for the purpose of purchase of the old vehicle on hypothecation basis. One Imtiyaz Yakubbhai Vohara that is respondent No.2 had availed auto loan of Rs.3,70,000/- for the purchase of vehicle Eicher Tempo bearing Registration No.GJ-23-V-739 (hereinafter referred to as 'the vehicle in question') vide Loan Agreement No.100944 from the petitioner on 10.01.2015 by way of hypothecation agreement. Respondent No.2 was obliged to repay the loan in 30 monthly installments, each of Rs.16,200/- and that the said loan facility was subject to various terms and conditions. The respondent No.2 failed to pay the sum of Rs.4,20,900/- with continuous default in the repayment. As on 17.08.2015, an amount of Rs.4,20,900/- was due towards the closure of the loan.

4.2 As per the petitioner, respondent No.2 had made the payment of some of the installments. While violating the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement, used the vehicle in question for illegal means. As a result whereof, the vehicle in question was detained by the Pardi police and was taken in custody.

4.3 Apropos which, the petitioner submitted an application dated 20.08.2015 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pardi, inter alia, seeking release of the vehicle in question. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pardi, vide order dated 02.11.2015, rejected the application of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order, the petitioner preferred a revision application being Criminal Revision Application No.101 of 2015 before the Sessions Court, Valsad. The learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Valsad, vide order dated 22.02.2016, partly allowed the revision application. The Court below granted the permission for release of the vehicle in question, but with a condition that there shall not be any change or alienation in the ownership of the vehicle in question.

4.4 Against the imposition of such condition, the petitioner has preferred present petition challenging the order dated 22.02.2016 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Valsad in Criminal Revision Application No.101 of 2015.

5. Mr.Darshan P. Kinariwala, learned advocate appearing with Mr.Nikunj D. Balar, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the Court below has not properly considered the facts of the present case and committed an error in imposing the condition, inter alia, restricting the sale or transfer and change in the ownership of the vehicle in question. It is submitted that if the petitioner is not permitted to sell the vehicle in question, it will further deteriorate and will not be worthy of usage in future. It is submitted that the Court below has not properly considered the judgment of the Apex Court in case of General Insurance Council and others vs. State of A.P., reported in 2010 AIR SCW 2967 relied upon by the petitioner, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held in paragraph 14 that insurer be permitted