In Re: Vellai Ocha thevan

.....that the legislature intended that there would be automatic stay of recovery proceedings by bank under section 13(4) on filing an appeal by borrower under section 17. use of the expressions if and then under section 17 would not mean that the bank can take one or more measures laid down under section 13(4) only if the tribunal declares that the action taken already is in accordance with the provisions of the securitisation act and the rules made thereunder. use of the word if does not connote a condition precedent. it is a recognised rule of interpretation of statutes that expressions used therein should ordinarily be understood in a sense in which they harmonized with the object of the statute and which effectuate the object of the legislature. the provisions of section 17 must, therefore, receive such construction at the hands of the court as would advance the object and at any event not thwart it. in other words, the principle of purposive interpretation should be applied while construing the said provisions. the securitisation act is enacted to provide a speedy and summary remedy for recovery of thousands of crores which were due to the banks and financial institutions. ordermiller, j.1. the evidence in this case is that 18 months after a theft of 29 currency-notes, each of the value of rs. 100, four of the stolen notes were found in the possession of the accused. he did not explain the possession but denied that he had ever had the notes with him.2. the question is whether, under these circumstances, the magistrates were right in convicting him of dishonest retention of stolen property.3. there is no circumstance to suggest that he was the thief and in the case of currency notes, at any rate of those not of large value, it seems to me impossible to hold that possession, a year and a half after the theft, of a few of the stolen notes is by itself evidence, pointing to guilty knowledge on the part of the possessor, i do not find in the judgment of the courts below anything to suggest that the accused is not a person who is likely to have had dealings to the amount of rs. 400 in a single transaction, so as to render suspicious his possession of four notes of rs. 100, which were all stolen on the same occasion, or any other suspicious circumstance against him,4. i find then no circumstances stated in the judgment of either court below which would justify a presumption of guilty knowledge in this case in the absence of an explanation, and consequently the fact that the accused has given a false explanation of his possession is not sufficient to warrant his conviction.5. i must set aside the conviction. the sentence of imprisonment has already expired. the fine must be refunded, if paid.