The most remarkable feature of the recent history of Criminal Law is the rise of probation. This has revolutionized the very conception of penal policy. Probation may be defined as the suspension of punishment plus personal supervision. A probation officer has three tasks before him. These are investigation, report, and treatment. With these three stages probation is the most advanced application of social case work in the field of Criminal Justice.

Distrust and resentment against the man who has been in prison has always proved an obstacle to the work of welfare agencies and to the honest efforts of the former prisoners themselves. It is a critical moment in the prisoner’s life and if he finds himself an out-cast excluded from the workshop and the companionship of respectable people he will rapidly develop a grudge to the Society. Man cannot leave in self contained isolation. Rejected from decent Society he falls back to the community of those he has met in prison.

Life is the greatest inventor of human destinies. It is wrong to imagine the prisoner as always the habitual criminal with a steady record of dishonesty. Abnormal times with social upheavals and growing insecurity throw people into crime. The right personal intervention by correctional methods may save thousands of persons from becoming criminals and they can be converted into good citizens of the Nation.

HUMANISATION OF CRIMINAL LAW IN YUGOSLAVIA

The Federal Executive Council has adopted the bill on amendments and supplements to the Criminal Code which foresees major amendments in the penal system and generally a humanization of the criminal law. One of the most essential changes is the abolition of the penalty of life imprisonment which will be replaced by a penalty of 20 years rigorous imprisonment. The bill also provides that death sentence can be pronounced in very grave cases. Till now death sentence has not been pronounced only on pregnant women and in future it will not be pronounced on persons below 21 years of age. Persons who have committed the gravest offence against the people, state or armed forces are not in question.

Persons who have been punished with rigorous imprisonment or imprisonment will after 11 months of constant work in a reformatory be allowed to a leave of 14 days during one year, reimbursement for work done, one day off a week, free health and social protection etc. It is also planned to acquit the convicted person if he has served one-third of his prison term instead of a half as has been the case so far.

Major changes have also been made with regard to minors. The bill provides that persons up to 14 years of age cannot be punished but only educational measures be undertaken against them. Minors aged 14 to 18 years are divided into two categories. Only educational measures can be applied on younger minors aged 14 to 16 years; the court can pronounce punishment on minors aged 16 to 18 years only if they have committed a criminal offence for which a penalty of at least 5 years of rigorous imprisonment is foreseen this being only in cases when it is considered that it would not be justified to apply educational measures.

RENT CONTROL LAW IN KERALA

(E.P. Varghese, M.A., B.L.)

For the last ten years and more there have been Laws to control the rent of buildings in Kerala. In the Malabar District of Madras which is now a part of the Kerala State, there was the Madras Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1949. In the Cochin State the Rent Control Order of 1117M.E. and the subsequent Cochin Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 24 of 1124 M.E. and in Travancore the Travancore House Rent Control Order of 1120 modified by the Order of 1122 were controlling the rents. With the integration of the two States of Travancore and Cochin the law was made uniform by the Travancore-Cochin Buildings Lease and Rent Control Order, 1950. On 17th January 1959 all these Acts and Orders have been superseded by an Ordinance, 3 of 1959 which promulgated a uniform law for the Kerala State.

This Ordinance was promulgated when a Bill, to enact a single law for the State, known as the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Bill introduced in the Kerala Legislative Assembly was ready for the second reading. The emergency for an Ordinance on a matter pending in the form of a Bill before the Legislature is inexplicable. Anyhow this Ordinance repealed and superseded all the existing laws -Acts and Orders-on the subject.

The Assembly met on 21st February 1959 and another Bill for Rent Control was introduced in the Legislature by the Government. This strange procedure came in ‘for the protest of the opposition and the Government rightly withdrew this 2nd Bill and commenced the 2nd reading of the first Bill. After many amendments, some of them even against the principles of the Bill accepted by the Assembly, the Bill was passed. On receiving the Assent of the Governor the Bill as passed by the Assembly will become law. Whether it has received the assent of the Governor is not yet known. Probably it needs the assent of the President. The Ordinance containing most of the provisions of the Bill was promulgated by the Governor after “instructions from the President have been obtained in pursuance of the proviso to clause (1) of Article 213 of the Constitution of India”. Anyhow the fact is that the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Bill passed by the Legislature is not yet law, or at least, it has not come into operation, since, under Section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Interpretation and General Clauses Act, 6 of 1125 as amended by Act 3 of 1957, it has not been published in the Gazette.

Further, it is laid down in Article 213 (2) (a) of the Constitution that an Ordinance “shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of the Legislature”.

Thus, Ordinance 3 of 1959, regarding Rent Control of Buildings has repealed all the existing laws and has itself ceased to operate, since 6 weeks are over after the reassembly of the Legislature on 21st February 1959. The position therefore is, there is no Rent Control Law in Kerala now. The Rent Control Petitions pending disposal will be in cold storage till the Bill passed by the Assembly becomes Law and is published in the Gazette. This period of hibernation may give rise to many difficulties which will need other legislation to rectify. Who is responsible for this state of affairs?

A MURDER IN THE HIGH SEAS -- 'CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALONE'

(V.A. Abdul Azeez, B.A B.L., Legal Assistant, Kerala Law Secretariat)

It was a fine Sunday afternoon. The year was 1947. S. S. Durban Castle was ready at the Cape Town Harbour for a long voyage. There were two hundred and sixty-three passengers. Beautiful Rounie Gibson, aged twenty-one, occupied a first class cabin. No. 126, on B. deck. Prom the very start of the voyage a deck steward by name James Camb had shown considerable interest in Miss Gibson. Durban Castle started sailing on 10th October bound for Southampton.

The first few days of the voyage were uneventful. Miss Gibson dined with two table companions on the evening of October 17th. She also particip­ated in the dancing which followed the meal. She was in good health and high spirits. At 12.30 A.M. she was seen talking with Camb. That was the last time she was seen alive.

The bell in her cabin rang twice during that night and it was the duty of the night watchman to answer such calls. As the night watchman pushed open the door he observed a man standing inside the cabin whom he recognized as James Camb. Then the door was shut in his face and a voice said it is ‘alright’.

With the incident still alive in his mind at 6’o clock next morning, the night watchman informed the stewardess in charge of the Cabin what had happened in Cabin No. 126 the previous night. She knocked on Miss. Gibson’s door, and had found that it was unlocked. The Cabin was unoccupied. She commenced a search of Miss Gibson, but failed to trace her. The news was shocking. The Stewardess informed the Captain and an official search of the Ship was made immediately. Enquiry of the passengers and crew yielded no results. The conclusion was that in some manner the passenger had been lost overboard. The ship was put back over her course for a search of the sea and an urgent radio message was flashed to all the ships in the vicinity to keep good look out.

All these attempts failed to trace the body and the vessel continued on her home-ward run.

James Camb was the first suspect. There had been trouble between this deck steward and lady passengers on several previous voyages. He was examined by the ship’s surgeon. This revealed very severe and recent scratches on his shoulders and wrists. Camb said they were self-inflicted while attempting to seek relief from itches. It was improbable. No sane man will inflict such severe scratches on one’s own body.

The ship arrived in Southampton on 24th October. Camb was interviewed by the Police. Inside Cabin No. 126 finger prints were found and were identified as those of James Camb.

At last after repeated questionings Camb made a statement which was taken down in writing and which he signed. The effect of that statement was that he had made an appointment at IIP. M. on the 17th to meet Miss Gibsonand he met her at 2 P. M. in her Cabin and with her consent hadsexual connection with her. While in the act, she had suddenly clutched at him and foamed at the mouth, and that he could not find that her heart was beating. Thinkingshe had fainted he tried artificial respiration on her. While doing this the night watchman knocked at the door and tried to open it. He shut the door saying that it was alright. Finding no sign of life he managed to lift her to the port-hole and pushed her into the sea. Without a body it was obviously impossible for the medical experts to say anything about the cause of death.

Camb was committed for trial at the Hamshire Assizes on 24th November, 1947. The prosecution explained that a crime committed on a British Ship wherever that ship might be, was within the jurisdiction of the British Courts. Witnesses were Called from South Africa. This case by its very unusual circumstances had aroused great interest.

The evidence of blood-stains on the bedding of Miss Gibson’s bunk was dealt with. These stains belonged to group ‘C whereas Camb’s group was ‘A’. It was clear that blood must have come from the injured portions of the body of the deceased. The conclusion was that the girl objected to whatever advances the prisoner was making, that she rang the bell for outside help, that she scratched the prisoner and he throttled her for self preservation.

The cross examination was prolonged and relentless, but Camb faced it boldly. He rigidly stuck to his story that Miss Gibson invited him for asexual intercourse. When the process was in progress she collapsed. He in panic threw her body into the sea. The defence relied mainly on establishing that Miss Gibson suffered from heart disease and so the story of the prisoner could be true.

A contraceptive was found in one of Miss Gibson’s suit cases. The defence counsel made much capital out of this finding. He declared that Miss Gibson could not be a virtuous woman to be in possession of such a thing. But the accused could not give a satisfactory explanation for the severe scratches found on his shoulders. The Judge devoted three hours to his summing up.Most of the props on which the defence relied went down. He declared ‘Camb’s failure to call in the doctor who was close handy or to seek aid from the night watchman who was actually knocking at the door are instances of callous brutality not easy to parallel in the annals of Crime’. At the time he threw the girl into the sea, the Liner was ninety miles off of the West Coast of Africa in a shark infested sea.

Camb was sentenced to death. But he was lucky. At that time theParliament was discussing the Criminal Justice Bill, containing a clause suspending the death penalty, for five years. James Camb was sentenced to penal servitude for life, pending the Criminal Justice Bill becoming law.

HYPOTHECATION OF MOVEABLES

(Philip K. Thayil B.A., M.L., Advocate Ernakulam)

Introduction

“Hypothecation” says Sir Rashbehary Ghose “is, no doubt, the most convenient and simplest mode of giving security.” The best type of security according to Salmond is that which combines the most efficient protection of the creditor with the least interference with the rights of the debtor. In this latter aspect the mortgage falls far short of the ideal. Yet in English law mortgage is the most important form of security. In Roman law and in the modern Continental systems based upon it, the place assumed by mortgages in the English system is taken by the lien (hypothec) in its various forms. The Roman mortgage (fiducia) even before the time of Justinian was displaced by the definitely superior simplicity and convenience of the hypothec, vide Buckland Mc Nair, Roman Law and Common Law (2nd) 314.f t. It is interesting to note that the modern continental law has followed not the law of mortgage but the law of hypothec which is the most convenient and simplest mode of giving security. The prominence of mortgage as the most important form of security is a peculiarity of English and Indian law. The complexity and difficulty of the English law of security is according to Salmond entirely due to the adoption of the system of mortgage as distinguished from hypothec. Although hypothecation is the most convenient and simplest form of security, there is no statutory provision for hypothecation of moveable’s in India.

It is to be regretted that hypothecation of moveable’s is a subject on which the Indian Contract Act and the Transfer of Property Act are wholly silent. Someday, we can trust, the Indian Legislature will have leisure to take the question in hand and give us an Act which will deserve a better fate than the Bills of Sale Acts of England. The purpose of this article is to deal with the history and certain incidents of hypothecation of moveable’s for which despite the fact that hypothecation is the most convenient and simplest form of security. There is no statutory provision in India.

Origin and History of hypothecation:-

The history of what the law has been is necessary to the knowledge of what the law is. The oldest type of security of the Romans was the Fiducia which consisted in the formal transfer by the debtor of the ownership of his property to the creditor. This transfer was however subject to the condition that the creditor should recovery the property on due payment of the debt. On non-payment of the debt at the appointed time, the debtor not only was liable to forfeit his property, however valuable, but he also placed himself completely at the mercy of his creditor who might sell or otherwise alienate the property to a stranger. In this transaction the debtor had no personal liability. Another drawback of the Fiducia was that certain kinds of property could not be transferred by anticipation or in jure cessio, the only modes by which Fiducia could be created in Roman law. Hence a new mode of giving security had to grow up. This was the Pignus in which unlike the Fiducia there was a transfer not of the ownership but simply of the possession of the thing by the debtor to his creditor. The creditor could neither sell the pledged goods for the purpose of realizing his dues nor become its owner if the debt was not repaid. He could only put a pressure on the will of pledgor who could not get back the property into his possession without fulfilling his engagement. Another draw back of the Pignus was that the debtor might find it inconvenient or practically impossible to part with possession of his property or the creditor might be reluctant to burden himself with the custody of the pledge. So the Roman lawyers had to find out a more suitable method of giving security and they found what they wanted ready to their hands in the Greek Hypothec. Thus Hypothec is of Greek parentage adopted by’ the Roman lawyers. In this form of pledge, the debtor did not part either with the possession or the ownership of the property but simply agreed to hold his property as security for the fulfillment of his engagement.

When the owners of large estates began to let out their lands for the purpose of cultivation they felt that they should have some security for their rent. The cultivator generally had only his farming stock as his property and they could not for obvious reasons be made over to the landlord in a Pignus nor transferred to him as in a Eiducia which was applicable only to certain kinds of property. A change in the law was therefore effected by the exercise of the Praetorian jurisdiction and Praetor Salvius allowed the validity of the pledge of his farming stock by the cultivator for the rent by a single agreement to that effect. Unlike the Pignus the tenant was not obliged to part with the possession of his property, but the landlord was invested with a right in ram which enabled him to vindicate his possessory right to the pledge not only against the tenant but also against strangers by the Interdictor Salvianum. This hypothec which was originally regarded merely as a deferred or suspended pledge appropriate in the case of contingent liabilities as rent due from a lessee soon became very popular owing t’b its extreme simplicity. The next step in the evolution was the extension of this form of security to every kind of engagement, the pledgee being allowed to enforce his right to the pledge against the world at large in the form of action, Quasi Serveanum. The last and greatest step was taken when the pledgee was invested with the right of sale. This idea was borrowed from the practice of the State to sell lands pledged to the public treasury.

What is hypothecation of moveable’s:-”A transaction intended to be a security over chattels in which there are no words of transfer and where the possession remains with the borrower will therefore amount to an equitable charge which is generally known as hypothecation”- vide Tannan Banking Law & Practice in India 5th Edn. P. 300. It may be remembered that hypothec is a form of giving security in which the debtor did not part with the possession or the ownership of the property. So hypothecation of moveable’s is giving security of moveable’s without giving possession of the moveable’s, (i. e.) a pledge without possession. Pledge is the bailment of goods as security for the payment of a debt or performance of a promise and hence delivery of possession of the moveable pledged is essential for it. “There can be no pledge in goods unless there is an actual delivery of the goods. A loan, however, may be secured by a hypothecation of goods. Such a transaction does not require delivery of goods for its validity nor can it be said to be prohibited by the Contract Act merely because the Act contains provisions for bailment of pledges and none for hypothecation of goods”, vide Pollock and Mulla, Indian Contract Act 1957 Ed: P. 600. Hypothecation recognized by Haripada V. Anathi Nath Dey. (1918) 22 C.W.N.758, 44 I.C. 211 Holden P.249. 

‘Hypothecation is defined by J. Milnes Holden (P.223), in his Securities for Banker’s Advances as a legal transaction whereby goods may be made available as security for a debt without transferring either the property or the possession to the lender. The term Hypothecation, the origin of which in English law is discussed by Professor Gutteridge, O.P. Cit P.75 is sometimes used to denote the creation of a charge by the customer over the documents and the goods representing them, vide A. G. Davis’ Law Relating to commercial Letter of Credit P. 169. Lord Chorley in his Law of Banking 3rd Edn P. 237 says as follows about hypothecation. “It is necessary, however, to notice here a type of security which is in effect an agreement to pledge, of which considerable use is now being made-When the customer is obtaining regular finance from his banker by way of acceptance by the latter of drafts drawn upon him by sellers of merchandise imported by the customer, it is usual for the customer, to make an agreement with the banker under which all property of his which may from time to time come into the hands of the banker, or alternatively specified property is, declared to be charged, for the repayment of the amount of such acceptances. This agreement takes the form of a letter to the banker signed by the customer, which is called a letter of lien or sometimes of hypothecation An owner remaining in possession cannot effectively pledge, though he may undertake to give up possession on demand. Such a promise to give possession as security is called a hypothecation “. Lord Chorley opines that hypothecation has never become a term of art in English law and that is used by business people with a somewhat loose connotation, for instance the memorandum accompanying a pledge of documents of title to goods, by which the pledger authorizes the pledgee to dispose of the goods in the event of his failing to discharge his obligation is commonly called a letter of hypothecation. Milne Holden also holds the same view.

Special Advantages of hypothecation; -

Here the borrower (pledge) can continue to possess the things hypothecated. He need not part with possession. His possession as owner is by hypothecation converted into that of a bailee from the pledgee, the lender. This form of security causes the least inconvenience to the borrower and the lender The borrower can with the previous consent of the lender (bank,) from time to time sell or dispose of the goods hypothecated or any part thereof provided the advance value of such goods is paid into the said account or goods of a similar nature to those mentioned in the schedule and of at least value are substituted for the goods so sold after the approval of the bank (lender) obtained in writing. The borrower can create charge even on, future goods, a charge on the goods to be brought into the go down. Borrower cannot pledge future goods as he has to give actual possession for pledge. The business of the merchant borrower is not hampered he delivery of possession of the goods. This form of security causes the least interference with the rights and business of the borrower merchant. The hypothecated goods continue to be the absolute property of the borrowers at the sole disposal of the borrowers. If a customer is in posses¬sion then he will normally be able to pass that possession to his banker. However, in some instances it is quite impossible for a banker to be given the actual or constructive possession of goods and it is in these cases that the possibility of hypothecating them must be considered. For example the goods may be temporarily in the possession of third parties; or it may be that the goods are in a part of the customer’s own warehouse which cannot be sealed off in such a way as to enable the banker to become a pledgee. The borrower creates charge even on the goods which have not come to his possession. Goods hypothecated are delivered by the borrowers to the buyers and the moneys, when realized are paid to the bank, usually after a period of a week or two. The borrowers usually pay up the bank’s dues in preference to all other liabilities because of the fear of criminal liability. The borrowers being generally merchants and being in possession of the hypothecated goods can sell them for the best price in the market to the buyers of borrower’s own choice. On the other hand if the lender bank is in possession and the banker is selling tie best price may not often be available.

Advantage to Banker- Realization of the goods is generally left to the customer, who for one thing is better acquainted than the banker with the particular market in which the goods are dealt in and who. moreover, does not wish to disclose to purchasers from him that his business is being financed by the bank. But, for the purpose of realization, the customer requires the documents of title. If the banker delivers them to him, then the banker would lose his charge and in the event of his customer’s insolvency supervening, would be in the position of an ordinary unsecured creditor. To overcome this difficulty the mercantile genius has evolved what is known as “letter of hypothecation”, “letter of lien” or “letter of trust” and “trust receipt”. The letter of trust evidences the agreement reached between the banker and his customer, buyer the agreement being, on the banker’s part, to hand the document of title to the customer, so that he may obtain delivery of the goods and thus be in a position to deliver them to sub-purchasers; and on the customer’s part, to hold the docu¬ments, the goods when received, and the proceeds thereof when sold, on behalf of the banker. The common form of letter of trust states that the customer agrees to act as trustee for the bank. But by the agreement evidenced by the letter of trust the customer does not become trustee in the commonly accepted meaning of that term as the banker does not divest himself thereby of the property which he has in the goods. The relationship as A. G. Davis says is partly bailment, partly agency and partly trust.

Bankers generally do not have the facility for storing merchandise, which an extensive use of this type of security would entail, while realization might be difficult. Apart from goods of great intrinsic value, such as jewellery, pledges of goods are not favored. When the customer is obtaining regular finance from his banker by way of acceptance by the latter of drafts drawn upon him by feeders of merchandise imported by the customer, it is usual for the customer to make an agreement with the banker under which all property of his which may from time to time come into the hands of the banker, or alternatively, specified property is declared to be charged for the repayment of the amount of such acceptances. This agreement takes the form of a letter of lien or letter of hypothecation.

The right of sale and recoupment is given to the banker. It arises on default. Notice of the intention to sell must be given to the debtor so that he may have a final opportunity to discharge his debt.

The good, according to the terms of hypothecation will be kept insured by the borrower. If the goods are subject to considerable price fluctuation the banker will naturally watch the market price very closely and require the customer to maintain an adequate margin. 

Very often bankers cannot keep under lock and key the produce pledged to them. This is all the more so when the produce is in the period of industrial process. Banks therefore have to accept such stocks as security by way of hypothecation only instead of the usual pledge if they desire to finance the business. Hypothecations occur mainly in the case of industrial processes such as rice hulling, flour milling, groundnut decorticating, oil milling, cotton ginning and pressing, sugarcane crushing, and coffee curing. During these processes pledge is impossible. In the case of limited companies the charge on goods hypothecated to the bank is registered with the Registrar of joint stock companies and this serves as sufficient notice to the public of the Bank’s interest in the goods.

The lender bank can keep his sign board displayed prominently on the premises where the hypothecated goods are stored. This sign board will serve as a notice to the public about the bank’s interest in the stocks. If the volume of the business warrants, a chowkidar with bank’s uniform and badge may be stationed at the premises. If any one of these precautions will make the hypothecated goods cease to be in the order and disposition of the borrower then the reputed ownership clause in the Insolvency Act will be repelled.

The borrowers can sell only with the previous consent of the bank in writing. Goods are delivered by the borrowers to the buyers and the moneys when realized, are paid to the bank. Borrowers take care to see at the time of the submission of periodical statements of stocks that the position of the account is in order. Though the business is risky, in actual practice the borrowers usually pay up the bank’s dues in perference to all other liabilities because of the fear of criminal liability. The banker is entitled by the terms of the hypothecation, to enter upon any godowns or premises wherein the hypothecated goods or any part thereof may for the time being be and to view, inspect and value the same and take inventories thereof or to take possession thereof. The hypothecation agreement gives the bank absolute authority to take possession of the goods under hypothecation and deal with them without any fear of consequences. Without notice to the borrowers the bank and their officers can enter and remain at any place where the hypothecated goods shall be and take possession «of, recover and receive the same or appoint any officer of the Bank as receiver of the hypothecated goods or sell by public auction or private contract or otherwise dispose of or deal with all or any part of the hypothecated goods. In the case of pledges even though the need for notice is waived the notice as a matter of prudence is given. In the case of hypothecation demand notice cannot be given beforehand because the possession is with the borrower and he can deal with the security in any manner he pleases before the expiry of the time stipulated by the banker in the demand notice for repayment of the advance. The borrower according to the terms of hypothecation remains liable for a short fall in the event of a forced sale. The bank is by the hypothecation deed irrevocably appointed the agent of the borrower with full powers regarding the disposal of the goods so that whatever action has to be taken the bank could do it without any further reference to the owner.

Disadvantages to the lender:-Possession and property in the goods remains with the borrower and only an equitable charge is created in favour of the lender. This is unsatisfactory position for the banker as he cannot have a preferential claim in the event of the insolvency of the borrower or in case of an attachment of the hypothecated goods by another creditor or if the goods are pledged by the borrower to a third party who has no notice of the hypothecation to the banker. It may be noted here that these open loan facilities are extended only to people of established reputation, and the fear of a criminal prosecution has indeed a deterrent effect even on somewhat dishonest borrower.

Open loans in favour of private individuals or a sole property concern are not very safe because in these cases the borrower alone knows what he is doing and no one else is interested in keeping a check over him as in the case of limited companies or partnership firms. Books of account as well as business dealings are kept secret and so banks have to depend mainly on the periodical statements submitted by the borrower. There is the possibility of the hypothecated goods completely disappearing over night if the borrower is thus minded. So it is better for the banker creditor to insist upon some collateral security in order to guard against such unhappy contingencies

Very often there is no possibility of goods hypothecated to bank being stored in a compact place and they may in the process of manufacture etc., be distributed in several places.

The banker has, in advances of this nature, to trust the borrower to a very large extent and depend on the books maintained and the stock statements submitted by him. A strict valuation as in the case of pledge is impossible in the case of hypothecation since the stock change vary frequently.

A purchaser in good faith of the hypothecated goods can defeat the previous creditor in whose favour the hypothecation was created. Even a subsequent pledge in good faith can defeat a prior hypothecation. So, the legislature must invent the key to unlock this problem. The Bills of Sale Acts of England are intended to solve this problem. A bill of sale, in its ordinary popular meaning is a document whereby the legal property in chattels is transferred to a person who lends money upon the security thereof when the possession does not pass; but the term “bill of sale” properly denotes any instrument whereby the property in chattels is transferred, whether absolutely or by way of mortgage. By a mortgage bill of sale ownership is transferred without possession. This ownership is mainly a right to seize. As H. G. Hanbury and C.H.M. Waldock opine a demon of clumsiness and ambiguity has beset the drafting of the Acts. As Lindely LjJ.said the legislature were aiming at rendering it compulsory on lenders of money on the security of goods & chattels to register their securities. A legislative venture without the pitfalls-and ambiguities of the Bills of Sale Act is indeed a desideratum in India. (All Rights Reserved)