The High Court numbered that the vehicle was involved in companymission of offences punishable under Sections 4 I A and 4 1 aaa of the Act read with Rules 5 6 of Rectified Spirit Rules.
II, Ponneri, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Cr.
In terms of the agreement, the hirer was required to pay 32 monthly instalments of Rs.14,875/ between the period from 24.6.2000 and 24.1.2003.
2 to purchase the said lorry under a hire purchase agreement.
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 appellant tried to take possession of the vehicle as an owner but the vehicle was number available at the premises and on enquiry appellant came to know that the police had seized the same on 6.9.2000 when the vehicle was operating with a fake number plate for transporting prohibited spirit.
7255 of 2003 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.
In the agreement, appellant is described as the owner and the respondent number2 as the hirer.
The First Information Report was lodged against respondent No.2 and therefore the appellant prayed for release of the vehicle.
No.1595 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The financier is also entitled to possession of the vehicle since he is the owner.
P.C. The application was filed for release of lorry bearing Registration No.
Under the hire purchase laws, the hirer can become the owner of the vehicle by exercising the option to purchase after paying the entire amount due and till that time the financier is the owner.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
The prayer was resisted by the State on the ground that the vehicle had already been directed to be returned to the respondent No.2 as he was the owner as per the Registration Certification.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellant.
The Criminal Revision was filed against order dated 22.12.2003 made in CMP No.
The case of the appellant before the High Court was that money was provided to the respondent No.
