BHARATH METHA versus STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAI

Citation: [2008] 5 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 25-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 478 
BHARATH METHA 
V. 
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAI 
(Criminal Appeal No. 549 of 2008) 
MARCH 25, 2008 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
ss. 451 and 457 - Release of vehicle in favour of financier 
C - HELD: In .the hire purchase agreement the financier is 
described as owner- In the Registration Certificate also name 
of financier is indicated - Hirer had failed to comply with 
release order - Therefore, vehicle be released in favour of 
financier on same conditions, as were imposed on hirer- Hire-
D Purchase Law. 
The lorry in question, which was subject to a hire 
( 
purchase agreement between the hirer-respondent no. 2 
and the appellant-Financier, was seized under the Tamil 
E Nadu Prohibition Act. Subsequently it was released in 
favour of respondent no. 2, but he did not comply with 
the conditions of the release order. Thereafter, the 
appellant filed an application u/ss. 451 and 457 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stating that in the hire-
purchase ·agreement the appellant-financier was 
F described as owner of the vehicle and as such he was 
entitled to possession of the vehicle. The application was 
rejected by the Judicial Magistrate. The High Court, in the 
revision petition, held that since respondent no. 2 was 
registered as owner of the vehicle and the revisionist was 
G only the financier, the vehicle could not be released in 
favour of the latter. Aggrieved, the financier filed the instant 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
478 
BHARATH METHA v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF 
479 
POLICE CHENNAI [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
-r 
HELD: Undisputedly, in the Registration Certificate A 
the name of the financier has been indicated and the 
factum that the vehicle was subject to such an agreement 
was also noted. In the agreement, appellant is described 
as owner, and respondent no. 2 as hirer. It is noticed that 
respondent no. 2 had applied for and the High Court had 
B 
-'> 
directed release of the vehicle on certain conditions. 
Undisputedly, those conditions have not been fulfilled. 
The vehicle is, therefore, .lying with the seizing authorities 
for nearly eight years now. In view of the factual position, 
~ 
the vehicle is directed to be released in favour of the c 
' 
appellant subject to fulfillment of the conditions which 
were stipulated for respondent no.2. [para 9] [475-D, E & F] 
Charanjit Singh Chad ha vs. Sudhir Mehra (2001) 7 SCC 
417; and Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat 
(2002) 1 o sec 283 - relied on . 
D 
.,,. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal 
Appeal No. 549 of 2008. 
From the final Judgment dated 25/11/2004 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. R.C. No. 267/2004. 
E 
Siddhartha Dave and Senthil Jagadeesan for the 
Appellant: 
V.G. Pragasam, S.J.Aristotle and Praburma Subramanian 
for the Respondent. 
F 
... 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned 
Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition G 
filed by the appellant. The Criminal Revision was filed against 
order dated 22.12.2003 made in CMP No. 7255 of 2003 by the 
"' 
Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 11, Ponneri, dismissing the 
petition filed by the appellant under Sections 451 and 457 of 
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Cr.P.C.'). 
H 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 5 S.C.R. 
A The application was filed for release of lorry bearing Registration 
r-
No. TN-01-F-9797 which was alleged to have been involved in 
a case registered for offences punishable under various 
provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. The case of the 
appellant before the High Court was that money was provided 
B to the respondent No. 2 to purchase the said lorry under a hire 
purchase agreement. In terms of the agreement, the hirer was 
1,-
required to pay 32 monthly instalments of Rs.14,875/- between 
the period from 24.6.2000 and 24.1.2003. Under the hire 
purchase laws, the hirer can become the owner of the vehicle 
c by exercising the option to purchase after paying the entire 
amount due and till that time the financier is the owner. The 
financier is also entitled to possession of the vehicle since he is 
the owner. In the agreement, appellant is described as the owner 
and the respondent no.2 as the hirer. The appellant tried to take 
D possession of the vehicle as an owner but the ve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.