The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order

dated 11-10-2019 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge

and Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mangalore and its confirmation

order dated 7-02-2020 passed by the I Additional District &

Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore in Criminal Revision Petition

No.192 of 2019 whereby the concerned Courts have declined to

accept delivery of the vehicle to the hands of the registered owner.

3

2. Heard Smt. Kalpana P.V., learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner; Shri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.J.Alva, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the

present petition, are as follows:

The petitioner claims to be the owner of a tipper lorry bearing

No.KA

19

AB

2229

after

purchasing

it

from

one

Mr.

Preetham/accused No.1, the previous owner of the vehicle for a

sum of Rs.7,75,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that on

07-08-2019 certain people claiming to be recovery agents of the 2^nd

respondent forcibly took possession of the vehicle, upon which, the

petitioner registers a complaint before the jurisdictional Police in

Crime No.70 of 2019. The 2^nd respondent/financier also registers a

complaint before the jurisdictional police in Crime No.181 of 2019.

The issue is not with regard to respective crimes so registered.

4. In one of the aforesaid crimes, the vehicle that was seized

was marked as PF 139 of 2019 and the said PF was placed before

4

the concerned Court. Both the petitioner and the financer filed

applications under Section 457 of the CrPC seeking interim custody

of the vehicle. The learned Magistrate in terms of the order dated

11-10-2019 ordered release of the vehicle in favour of the financier

and rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking custody

of the vehicle. Against the said order, the petitioner prefers a

revision petition in Criminal Revision Petition No.192 of 2019 on the

ground that the petitioner being the registered owner, vehicle ought

to have been given to his custody. This having been turned down

by affirming the order passed by the learned Magistrate, the

petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court in the subject

petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

contend that the vehicle has to be handed over to the registered

owner and not to the financier, as the financier has to take recourse

in a manner known to law, to repossess the vehicle and not forcibly

seize the vehicle and take custody of it. She would place reliance

upon the judgments rendered by this Court and Punjab and

Haryana High Court in the cases of:

5

(1) SYED HAFEEZULLA PASHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 3

ILR 1986 KAR 3349;

(2) BINOD TATER v. VEERABADRA 3 Criminal Petition No.5776

of 2018 decided on 22-10-2018 and

(3) NARINDER KUMAR SINGLA v. STATE OF PUNJAB - 2006

Crl.L.J. 4348

to buttress her submission that interim custody of the vehicle under

Section 457 of the Cr.P.C. should always be handed over to the

registered owner.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the

2^nd respondent/financier would refute the submissions to contend

that accused No.1 has defaulted in payment and to get away the

rigour of seizure, sold the vehicle to the present petitioner who is

accused No.2. Accused No.2 having purchased the vehicle steps

into the shoes of accused No.1 and in the light of default being

continued, the possession of the vehicle was taken in terms of the

hire purchase agreement. He would contend that the financier has a

right to repossess the vehicle and the Court has rightly ordered

interim custody of the vehicle to the financer. He would place

6

reliance on a 3 Judge Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case

of SREI EQUIPMENT FINANCE LIMITED v. RAMJAN ALI 3 AIR

2021 SC 326.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material