The Chief Manager And Another v. The State And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRR/27/2026 The Chief Manager and another Vs The State and Others Mrs. Shipra Mondal ... for the petitioners Mr. Rakesh Kumar ... for the respondent nos. 2 to 3 Ms. A. S. Zinu ... for the respondent no. 1 April 28, 2026 [SR] Item No.8 1.

The State Bank of India and its functionaries, being the petitioners, have challenged an order of confiscation of a vehicle involved in an offence under the Forest Act, 1927. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the offending vehicle, in which the seized articles were found, belongs to the bank, since the same was under hypothecation to the respondent no.5 at the time of seizure.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that within the contemplation of Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, "owner" includes a person who has given a property in hypothecation to another.

3.

Learned counsel further argues that, as such, within the purview of Sections 54, 56 and 57 of the Forest Act, 1927, the Court, before passing an order of seizure, ought to have granted an opportunity of hearing to the bank, under which the vehiclein-question was hypothecated. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 opposes the prayer and submits that a criminal revision is not

maintainable in the circumstances of the instant case. That apart, it is also disputed that the bank was the owner of the vehicle-in-question at the relevant point of time. 5.

From the materials before the Court and upon consideration of the law governing the subject, the Court is unable to agree with the submissions of the petitioners. 6.

Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as follows:

"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.

...

...

...

(30) "owner" means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement." 7.

From a bare perusal of the said provision, it transpires that the entity which has hypothecated a vehicle does not come within the purview of "owner". In respect of hypothecated vehicles, the person in possession of the vehicle under the hypothecation agreement has been included within the purview of "owner" under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Thus, the argument of the petitioners on such count cannot be accepted.

8.

Even under Sections 54, 56 and 57 of the Forest Act, 1927, there is no mandate on the Court, before directing seizure, to give notice to an entity, including a secured creditor, which has hypothecated a vehicle to the offender or the owner of the vehicle.

9.

In any event, in the present case, the vehicle stands registered in the name of respondent no.5 and as such, even

under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the petitioner/bank cannot claim ownership of the property.

10.

That apart, since the accused person himself pleaded guilty of the alleged offence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Andaman & Nicobar Islands at Port Blair was fully justified in passing an order of confiscation. Thus, there is no scope of release of the vehicle to the petitioners within the legal regime contemplated under the Forest Act, 1927 and/or any other statute for that matter.

11.

Accordingly, CRR/27/2026 is dismissed, thereby affirming the impugned order dated October 10, 2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (A & N Islands) at Port Blair in CR No. 99 of 2025.

12.

However, it is made clear that nothing in the above order or the order impugned herein shall prevent the petitioners from ventilating their grievances with regard to the hypothecated vehicle before an appropriate civil forum/court, if not already done by way of a money claim.

13.

There will be no order as to costs.

14.

Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)