Hyderabad High Court · 2025

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri. J. Kanakaiah Counsel forthe Respondent : Mr. E. Ganesh Assistant public prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON 'BLE SRIJ USTICE E. V.VE NUGOPAL CRIMIN AL REVISIO N CASE No.172 oF ZOZO ORDER: 1 This criminal revision case is fited under Section 397 rlw 401 Cr.P.Caggrieved by the judgment dated 03'07'7070 passed in Crt.A.No.'158 of 2016 passed by the learned lll Additionat Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, wherein and whereby the convict'ion and sentence imposed upon the petitioner' to suffer simpte imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 406 lPC, in C'C'No'545 of 2010 by the learned Speciat Judicial. Magistrate of I Ctass (Excise)' Karimnagar' dated

18.11 .7016, was confirmed' THeardSriJ.Kanakaiah,learnedcounselforthepetitioner and Mr.E.Ganesh, the [earned Assistant Pubtic Prosecutor representing the State-'l't respondent' and perused the record' 3 The factua[ matrix that ted to the fiting of the present revision is that the petitioner herein was tried for an offence under Section 406 IPC by the learned Speciat Judicial Magistrate of lCtass (Excise), Karimnagar' The attegation against the petitioner was that in October,2006, the vehicte of P'W'1 i'e' Mahindra Botero Comfit bearing registration No'AP 15 X 1427 was 2 invotved in an accident at Maltapur of Dharmaram Mandat and it was damaged completety. Hence, she shifted that vehicLe to the petitioner. The petitioner charged Rs.7Z,0O0/_ towards repairs, but she paid onl.y Rs.40,000/_ and requested the petitioner to detiver her vehicte for which the petitioner refused demanding payment of the remaining amount. lt was elicited during the course of trial that the said vehicle was under hire purchase with the financier as on the date of complaint. The a[egation was that after one year when p.W. 1 approached the petitioner for return of the vehicle, the petitioner reptied that he ,oid u*ay her vehicle and stated to do whatever she desired. Since the petitioner did not return the vehicle, p.W.1 lodged the complaint against the petitioner for an offence under Section 406 lpC. 4 During the course of trial, on behalf of the comptainant P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 (husband of p.W. 1) atone were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behatf of the petitioner no evidence, either oral or documentary, was let in. 5 On appreciation of the entire materiaI avaitable on record, the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishabte under Section 406 lpC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer simpte imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved, the 5 petitioner fited Crt.A.No.158 of 2016 on the fite of the Court of the learned lll Additiona[ Sessions Judge, Karimnagar' The learned appetl.ate Court, vide the impugned judgment dismissed the appeat. As stated supra, feeting aggrieved by the judgment of the appetLate court, the petitioner fited the present criminal revlslon case. 6 The contention of Sri J.Kanakaiah, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is an authorized workshop of Mahindra and Mahindra and as per the agreement between the petitioner and Mahindra and Mahindra, he undertakes the repairs of the vehictes, which were purchased from the said company. lt is his further contention that the second respondent herein purchased the subject vehicte with the finance arranged by Mahindra and Mahindra and registered the same on her name atong with the financier, as such, question of setting of the vehicte of the second respondent by the petitioner is totatl.y fatse and baseless and to that effect no material was ptaced on record by the comptainant. He further contended that as per Ctause 13 of the loan agreement which the second relgondent entered into with Mahindra and Mahindra, in the event of defa-ul.t in payment of the instatlment amount, the \r- financier is entitted to seize the vehicl,e from anywhere by giving _ I I 4 information to the owner of the vehicte and in the said process, the financier i.e. Mahindra and Mahindra have issued notices and final telegram notice to the second respondent and only thereafter they seized the vehicte from the workshop of the petitioner and that fact was informed to the potice also. lt is his further contention that the petitioner faited to take back the vehicle within a reasonable time, but she claimed the vehicte after one year. lt is further contended that since the petitioner being an authorized workshop of Mahindra and Mahindra, he cannot resist his master from seizing the subject vehicte. He also submitted that the vehicle was transferred by the financier in the name of third parties as per the information furnished by RTA Mancheriat. lt is his predominant contention that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner sold out the vehicle of the second respondent. 7 On the other hand, the learned Assistant pubtic prosecutor submitted that both the courts below have concurrently hetd that the petitioner is guitty of the offence under Section 406 lpC, which finding need not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisionaI jurisdiction. 5 As seen from the record, it is an admitted fact that second 8 respondent herern Purchased the subject vehicl'e with the finance arranged by Mahindra and Mahindra and registered the same on her name atong with the financier' lt is atso an admitt-ed fact that the second respondent fett due of certain instaltments to the finance companv. As per Ctause 13 of the loan agreement which the second respondent entered into with Mahindra and Mahindra' in the event of defautt in payment of the instatlment amount' the financier is entitl,ed to seize the vehicte from anywhere by giving information to the owner of the vehicle' lt is the contention of the petitioner that the financier i'e' Mahirrdra and Mahindra have issued notices and finat tetegram notice to the second respondent and onty thereafter they seized ther vehicte from the workshop of the petitioner and that fact was informed to the pol.ice also. The petitioner being an authorized workshop of Mahindra and Mahindra and as per the agreement between the petitioner and Mahindra and Mahindra, he undertakes the repairs of the vehictes, which were purchased from the said company' Nowhere it is found in the record that the petitioner himsetf sold the vehicte of the second respondent to third parties' The second responclent having given the vehicle to the petitioner to undertake repairs, shoutd have taken back the vehicte within a \ 'r\ : .l 6 reasonable time after paying the due charges. But in the instant case the second respondent did not do so. She waited a year long time and having come to know that the vehicle was transferred in the name of third parties by the financier, now turned back that she intends to take back the vehicle by paying the necessary charges. There are no bona fides on the part of the second respondent. 9 As rightty contended by the learned senior counset, the financier, in the event of any faiture in paying the instattments by the [oanee, is entitted to seize the vehicte from anywhere. The petitioner being an authorized workshop of Mahindra and Mahindra, cannot resist his master from seizing the subject vehicte. There is no evidence on record to show that the petitioner sold out the vehicte of the second respondent. Therefore and for that reason, the petitioner cannot be found fautt with. '10 Accordingly, this criminat revision case is altowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.545 of Z01O by the learned Speciat Judiciat Magistrate of I Ctass (Excise), Karimnagar, which was confirmed in Crt.A.No.15g of 2016 passed by the learned lll Additionat Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, is.set __l E Z 7 aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the said offence' His bait bonds if any shatt stand cancetled' 11 . As a sequet, miscettaneous petitions if any pending in this criminal revision case shatl stand ctosed' To, //TRUE COPY// SdA I. NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR {n , \.-\i -skcr ION OFFICER

1. The lll Additional Sessions Judge at Karimnagar. (with records, if any) 2. The Special Judicial Magistrate for First Class (Excise) Karimnagar. 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. (OUT)

4. One CC to Sri. J Kanakaiah Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies s DL HIGH COURT DATED: 2010212025 ORDER CRLRC.No.172 of 2020 i /{ l,:) 'i:il t.^ ,is 2j ltnn 2tr6 \. .,. '\ -. ",- \l= qr,^ uEg ((\( z ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE G)qu %,td*