Telangana High Court
The Bhawan Service Engineers vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 20 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.172 OF 2020
ORDER:
1 This criminal revision case is filed under Section 397 r/w
401 Cr.P.C aggrieved by the judgment dated 03.02.2020 passed in
Crl.A.No.158 of 2016 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions
Judge, Karimnagar, wherein and whereby the conviction and
sentence imposed upon the petitioner, to suffer simple
imprisonment for six months, for the offence punishable under
Section 406 IPC, in C.C.No.545 of 2010 by the learned Special
Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise), Karimnagar, dated
18.11.2016, was confirmed.
2 Heard Sri J.Kanakaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr.E.Ganesh, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
representing the State-1st respondent, and perused the record.
3 The factual matrix that led to the filing of the present
revision is that the petitioner herein was tried for an offence
under Section 406 IPC by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate
of I Class (Excise), Karimnagar. The allegation against the
petitioner was that in October, 2006, the vehicle of P.W.1 i.e.
Mahindra Bolero Comfit bearing registration No.AP 15 X 1427 was
involved in an accident at Mallapur of Dharmaram Mandal and it
was damaged completely. Hence, she shifted that vehicle to the
petitioner. The petitioner charged Rs.72,000/- towards repairs,
but she paid only Rs.40,000/- and requested the petitioner to
deliver her vehicle for which the petitioner refused demanding
payment of the remaining amount. It 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 allegation was
that after one year when P.W.1 approached the petitioner for
return of the vehicle, the petitioner replied that he sold away
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 IPC.
4 During the course of trial, on behalf of the complainant
P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 (husband of P.W.1) alone were examined and
Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked. On behalf of the petitioner no
evidence, either oral or documentary, was let in.
5 On appreciation of the entire material available on record,
the trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 406 IPC and accordingly sentenced him
to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved, the
petitioner filed Crl.A.No.158 of 2016 on the file of the Court of
the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. The
learned appellate Court, vide the impugned judgment dismissed
the appeal. As stated supra, feeling aggrieved by the judgment
of the appellate court, the petitioner filed the present criminal
revision 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 vehicles, which were purchased
from the said company. It is his further contention that the
second respondent herein purchased the subject vehicle with the
finance arranged by Mahindra and Mahindra and registered the
same on her name along with the financier, as such, question of
selling of the vehicle of the second respondent by the petitioner
is totally false and baseless and to that effect no material was
placed on record by the complainant. He further contended that
as per Clause 13 of the loan agreement which the second
respondent entered into with Mahindra and Mahindra, in the
event of default in payment of the installment amount, the
financier is entitled to seize the vehicle from anywhere by giving
information to the owner of the vehicle 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 vehicle from the workshop of the
petitioner and that fact was informed to the police also. It is his
further contention that the petitioner failed to take back the
vehicle within a reasonable time, but she claimed the vehicle
after one year. It is further contended that since the petitioner
being an authorized workshop of Mahindra and Mahindra, he
cannot resist his master from seizing the subject vehicle. He
also submitted that the vehicle was transferred by the financier
in the name of third parties as per the information furnished by
RTA Mancherial. It 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 Public Prosecutor
submitted that both the courts below have concurrently held that
the petitioner is guilty of the offence under Section 406 IPC,
which finding need not be interfered with by this Court in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
8 As seen from the record, it is an admitted fact that second
respondent herein purchased the subject vehicle with the finance
arranged by Mahindra and Mahindra and registered the same on
her name along with the financier. It is also an admitted fact
that the second respondent fell due of certain installments to the
finance company. As per Clause 13 of the loan agreement which
the second respondent entered into with Mahindra and Mahindra,
in the event of default in payment of the installment amount,
the financier is entitled to seize the vehicle from anywhere by
giving information to the owner of the vehicle. It is the
contention of the petitioner that the financier i.e. Mahindra and
Mahindra have issued notices and final telegram notice to the
second respondent and only thereafter they seized the vehicle
from the workshop of the petitioner and that fact was informed
to the police 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 vehicles, which were purchased from the said company.
Nowhere it is found in the record that the petitioner himself sold
the vehicle of the second respondent to third parties. The
second respondent having given the vehicle to the petitioner to
undertake repairs, should have taken back the vehicle within a
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 rightly contended by the learned senior counsel, the
financier, in the event of any failure in paying the installments by
the loanee, is entitled to seize the vehicle from anywhere. The
petitioner being an authorized workshop of Mahindra and
Mahindra, cannot resist his master from seizing the subject
vehicle. There is no evidence on record to show that the
petitioner sold out the vehicle of the second respondent.
Therefore and for that reason, the petitioner cannot be found
fault with.
10 Accordingly, this criminal revision case is allowed, setting
aside the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.545 of 2010
by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of I Class (Excise),
Karimnagar, which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.158 of 2016 passed
by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, is set
aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the said offence. His bail
bonds if any shall stand cancelled.
11 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending in this
criminal revision case shall stand closed.
____________________
JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL
Date: 20.02.2025
Kvsn
