1983 (12) TMI 326 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Interlocutory nature of the Magistrate's order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Entitlement to interim custody of the lorry under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Legal implications of the registration certificate under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
4. The relevance of ownership and possession in determining interim custody of the vehicle.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interlocutory nature of the Magistrate's order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court held that the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was an interlocutory order, making it non-revisable under the bar of Section 397(2) of the Code. The Sessions Court's view that the order was of an intermediary type was deemed incorrect. The court referenced previous decisions, Vasu v. Unnikrishnan (1983 KLT 310) and Jacob v. Jayabarath Credit and Investment Company (1983 KLT 721), to support this conclusion. Consequently, the order of the Sessions Court in Crl. R. P. 158 of 1983 was set aside.

2. Entitlement to interim custody of the lorry under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court examined the complainant's contention that custody under Section 451 could only be given to the registered owner. The complainant relied on the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and decisions such as Sahadevan v. Sudhakaran (1970 KLT 782), Kamaluddin v. Abdul Salim (1971 KLT 927), and Jacob v. Jayabarath Credit and Investment Company (1983 KLT 721). However, the court emphasized that these decisions did not establish a general rule that only the registered owner is entitled to possession. The court noted that there could be circumstances where a person other than the registered owner could be given interim custody under Section 451.

3. Legal implications of the registration certificate under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939:
The court clarified that the registration certificate is not a document of title but evidence of ownership. Ownership of a vehicle is governed by the Sale of Goods Act, and transfer of ownership precedes the transfer of the registration certificate. The court cited several precedents, including Muthuswamy Gounter v. Tulasi Ammal (1970 ACJ 18 Mad.), which held that the sale of a vehicle is complete before the transfer of the registration certificate. The registration certificate follows ownership and not vice versa.

4. The relevance of ownership and possession in determining interim custody of the vehicle:
The court emphasized that the registration certificate provides important evidence of ownership but is not conclusive. It is open to parties to show that the registration certificate does not reflect true ownership. The court referred to various precedents, including Kishan Pandurang Kagde v. Balde Singh Gian Singh (ILR 1977 Bom. 1310), which highlighted that ownership and possession could be transferred before the registration certificate is updated. The court held that while the registration certificate is significant, it is not the sole determinant of ownership and possession.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Magistrate's order was based on a proper consideration of the relevant materials, including the registration certificate and documents showing payment of a substantial part of the consideration. The Magistrate's decision to grant interim custody to the accused was upheld. The Crl. M. C. No. 752 of 1983 was dismissed, and the order of the Sessions Court in Crl. R. P. 158 of 1983 was set aside, restoring the Magistrate's order in Crl. M. P. 2162 of 1983.

← Previous Next →