R.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) The issue which has arisen before this Court in the present case is that whether the finance company which had granted a loan to the owner for buying a vehicle is entitled to recover the vehicle in case, the higher purchaser defaults in payment and in case the offending vehicle is involved in commission of criminal offence?
(2.) The issue arises in the following background: on 30th July, 2007, the SHO, Police Station Rohit Pali had stopped a Toyota Innova Car, bearing No.RJ 27 TC 0070994I, and a search was made. The police had discovered ten bags of doda post, weighing 217 Kg. doda post powder. Thus, a case was chalked out for offence under the NDPS Act and the vehicle was duly seized. Since the petitioner company had granted a loan to Ramesh for the said vehicle, since Ramesh had failed to repay the loan amount, the petitioner-company had filed an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court and prayed that the custody of the vehicle be given to it. However, vide order dated 25.08.2010, the said application was dismissed. Hence, this petition before this Court.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the cases of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, JT 2002 (10) SC 80 ; Bharat Mehta v. State by Inspector of Police, Chennai, AIR 2008 SC 1970 and on the case of General Insurance Council & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., 2010 Cri LJ 2883 to buttress his contention that even if the vehicle is involved in a criminal offence, since the petitioner company had been shown as the owner of the offending vehicle, it is entitled to seek the custody of the vehicle. Secondly, the Apex Court had laid down certain guidelines for exercising of power under Section 451 Cr.P.C. in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai (supra). However, the said guidelines have been ignored by the learned Judge while dismissing the application under Section 451 Cr.P.C.;