Granting of Petitioners' Right to Sell Vehicles in Custody | Emphasis on CrPC Sections | Apex Court Directives

The Criminal Original Petitions were allowed, granting the petitioners the right to sell vehicles held in custody by lower courts. The judgment emphasized adherence to Sections 451 and 457 of the CrPC and highlighted the importance of following directives from the Apex Court regarding the timely return of vehicles to their owners. The lower court was instructed to facilitate the sale of the vehicles after recording necessary documentation, such as photographs and Panchnama, as evidence.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Right of sale of vehicles in custody.
2. Interpretation and application of Sections 451 and 457 CrPC.
3. Adherence to the Apex Court's directives in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat.

Summary:

Issue 1: Right of Sale of Vehicles in Custody

The petitions seek the right of sale of vehicles placed in the custody of the petitioners under orders of the lower courts. In Crl. O.P. No. 5278 of 2007, the petitioner, a non-banking finance company, financed a vehicle under a hypothecated loan agreement. Upon default by the borrower, the vehicle was seized by the police in connection with Crime No.1135 of 2006 for offences u/s 4(1)(aa) & 4(1)(g). The Judicial Magistrate directed the return of the vehicle to the petitioner with conditions, including that the vehicle not be sold. The petitioner filed against this order. In Crl. O.P. No. 9744 of 2010, the petitioner's vehicle was seized by the police in connection with Cr. No.36 of 2009 for offences u/s 341, 323, 363, and 506(i) IPC. The Judicial Magistrate directed the return of the vehicle with conditions. The petitioner sought permission to sell the vehicle after it was damaged by fire, which was denied by the trial court, leading to the current petition.

Issue 2: Interpretation and Application of Sections 451 and 457 CrPC

Learned senior counsel Sri. Ashok Kumar highlighted that Chapter 34 of the CrPC, comprising Sections 451 to 459, deals with the disposal of property. Section 451 CrPC allows for the custody and disposal of property pending trial, and Section 457 CrPC deals with the procedure by police upon seizure of property. The judgment emphasized the importance of the Apex Court's decision in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, which directs that vehicles need not be held at police stations and courts until the trial is completed. The judgment also referenced the decision in Bharath Mehta v. State by Inspector of Police, Chennai, which directed the return of the vehicle to the financier.

Issue 3: Adherence to the Apex Court's Directives in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat

The judgment reiterated the Apex Court's directives in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat, emphasizing that vehicles should not be kept at police stations for long periods. The court should pass appropriate orders for the return of vehicles to their owners or the person from whom they were seized, taking appropriate bonds and guarantees. The judgment stressed that the return of vehicles and permission for sale should be the norm rather than the exception, and that evidence relating to vehicles can be held in altered forms, such as photographs and videography.

Conclusion:

The Criminal Original Petitions are allowed. The lower court shall, upon production of a certified copy of this order, fix a date for the production of the vehicle. Upon production, the lower court shall cause photographs of the vehicle to be taken and record Panchnama thereof. The petitioner shall then be at liberty to effect the sale of the vehicle. The photographs and Panchnama prepared shall be read as evidence in lieu of marking the vehicles. The Registry is directed to circulate a copy of this order to all Sessions/Metropolitan/Judicial Magistrate Courts.

---