1. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section-226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section-451 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging order dated 29/03/2012 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Criminal Revision Application No.54 of 2012 on the grounds stated in present petition.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Patel appearing for the petitioner.
3. The facts of the case are narrated as under:
3.1. The applicant is a finance company having financed muddamal mini truck bearing registration no.GJ-18-AT-8280. The said vehicle was seized under Section-41(1)(D) of Criminal Procedure Code by the Circle Inspector of Karjan Police Station and the offence has been registered under Section-124 of the Bombay Police Act. Thereafter the applicant as a finance company made the application that it has been hypothecated for the loan given by the applicant company and also sought permission to sell the vehicle which has been refused as recorded in impugned order on earlier occasion.
4. Thereafter again the present application has been filed for the same prayer that permission to sell the vehicle may be granted which is a muddamal vehicle in the pending trial.
5. Admittedly the trial is pending and the possession/custody of the vehicle in question has been given to the applicant as a finance company pending the trial.
6. However, the permission as prayed for regarding sale of the vehicle cannot be granted when the trial is pending. The contention that the applicant as a finance company is not a party in the proceedings before the trial court is also not of any relevance. The vehicle is a muddamal in a criminal case. The applicant is a finance company and financed for the vehicle which would be concerned with the money which has been financed for which the applicant company can take appropriate measures for recovery of outstanding amount. In fact to protect the interest of the applicant, the application has been permitted to be taken, which should satisfy the applicant. Therefore, merely because the applicant company has financed for the vehicle, the permission cannot be granted as the recovery of the amount which has been financed is altogether a separate issue for which separate proceedings may be initiated, so the appropriate steps can be taken to protect the interest of the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned order is erroneous which would call for exercise of any discretion as sought to be canvassed.
7. Reliance has been placed in the judgment which is mentioned in the application referring to Section-451 to 457. However, such observations have to be considered in the background of the facts, and the present application cannot be entertained as the vehicle in question in the present case is running with bogus registration number and is a muddamal in pending trial. Therefore present petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.
(RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J.) (ila) Top