9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (12) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leged that on 25-8-1983 at 8 p. m., accused met the complainant at his house and wanted to take the lorry out for the purpose of testing and accordingly the complainant allowed the accused to take away the lorry but the accused did not return the lorry and refused to return the same. An application was made for the issue of a search warrant and warrant was issued and the lorry was seized by the police from the custody of the accused. Thereupon, the accused filed Crl M. P. 2162 of 1983 for release of the lorry to him on bond, evidently under S.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The application was opposed by the complainant on the basis that he, as the person in whose name the registration certificate stands, is entitled to custody and the accused who has no right with reference to the lorry, is not entitled to interim custody. The learned Magistrate passed an order directing release of the lorry to the accused on his executing a bond for Rs. one lakh with two solvent sureties in the like amount. (3) Challenging this order, the complainant filed Crl. R. P. No. 158 of 1983 in the Sessions Court, Trivandrum. It was contended before the Sessions Court that the order being interl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Jacob v. Jayabarath Credit and Investment Company (1983 KLT 721). (6) Sahadevan 's case related to a case of rash and negligent driving, in the course of investigation of which the motorcycle was seized from the scene of occurrence and not from any person and entrusted to the first respondent and another as per a bond. At the conclusion of the trial, the accused was acquitted. The question arose as to what should be the nature of the order of disposal under S.517 of the Code of 1898, corresponding to S.452 of the Code of 1973. E. K. Moidu, J. observed that normally in the case of acquittal, the property must be returned to the person from whom it was seized but the Magistrate has discretion to return it either to the complainant or the accused, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. After referring to decisions of several courts relating to motor vehicles, the court observed that the court is bound to go into the question of ownership to decide who is entitled to possession. Taking note of the circumstances that the motor cycle was seized from the scene and not from the first respondent and the first respondent came into the picture only later claiming to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led petitions claiming interim custody. Police reported that they intended to refer the case and the Magistrate ordered interim custody to the person from whom the bus was seized. The court observed that the custodian from whom it was seized was not the registered owner and therefore it was not proper to give interim custody to him. The court relied on certain observations of the Karnataka High Court in U. Kariappa v. P. Sreekantaiah ( 1980 CriLJ 422 ) and of the Gujarat High Court in Nandiram v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1967 Gujarat 80). (9) In U. Kariappa's case, the Karnataka High Court observed as follows in Para.8 and 10: While making an order for interim custody of a motor vehicle, what the criminal court has to keep in view is who would be the best person to make use of the vehicle pending conclusion of the enquiry and trial, because if a mechanically propelled vehicle is kept idle for a long time not only there are chances of it being spoiled, but the person who is deprived of that possession of the vehicle, either by theft or otherwise is likely to be put to great loss in his business .....Therefore, it is clear from the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r person, unless he is able to establish his Superior title or claim over it. (Emphasis supplied) (10) After quoting these passages from these two decisions, Narendran J. in Jacob's case considered the facts of the case. The registered owner had given a letter of relinquishment to the financier. This court held that in the circumstances of the case, it was not proper to give interim custody to a person other than the registered owner. However, on the submission that the police referred the case, the court directed a fresh order to be passed under S.452 of the Code. (11) On a consideration of the above decisions, it cannot be said that this court or the other High Courts in those decisions purported to lay down a general rule of invariable application, applicable to all cases irrespective of the facts and circumstances of the cases. I have already emphasised certain portions of the passages quoted above and those portions indicate that there could be contingencies where a person other than the registered owner could be given interim custody under S.451 of the Code. This is consistent with the provisions of the Act also. (12) Chap .3 of the Act relates to registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act or of any rule made under the Act and also prescribes fine which may be leviable on conviction. (13) I shall now advert to the precedents where these provisions arose for consideration. In Muthuswamy Gounter v. Tulasi Ammal (1970 ACJ. 18 Mad.), the High Court of Madras held that S.31 of the Act states that contractual transfer of ownership of a vehicle has to precede the application for transfer of ownership, but as between the parties to the transfer the sale gets completed before the transfer of the R. C. and though failure to report the transfer may involve penalties under the law the passing of property to the transferee is not thereby prevented. All that is required under the Act is that the transfer has to be notified; otherwise penal consequences follow. But that does not make the transfer invalid. The moment the sale of the vehicle is effected intending to pass the property therein forthwith vis a vis the vehicle, the registered owner ceases to have any proprietary interest. It may be that, till there is an endorsement on the registration certificate, ostensibly the transferor is the owner. But the beneficial interest, including the right to possession, vests in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions in S.31 of the Act observed as follows: The language of the section itself thus makes it clear that it is only after the ownership of the vehicle is transferred that a report has to be made to the registering authority to effect a change in the name of the owner in the certificate of registration where the name of the previous owner has been recorded. The transfer of registration thus follows the transfer of ownership and not vice versa. In other words, the transfer of ownership does not flow from the transfer of registration. The transfer of ownership does not, depend upon the transfer of registration. The object underlying the provisions in S.31 is that the registering authority must have the name of the proper person who is liable to pay taxes. Also, perhaps, in the case of an accident, the authorities must have the name of the proper person upon whom liability can be fixed or damages or compensation resulting from the accident. There is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act which deals with the transfer of ownership of the vehicle which, like any movable property is governed by the Sale of Goods Act. The provision in S.31 of the Motor Vehicles Act is only t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such consequences does not prevent title passing from the transferor to the transferee. Immediately the sale is effected with the intention to pass title, the registered owner loses his right. It may, perhaps, be that till the endorsement to that effect is made in the registration certificate, so far as the registering authority is concerned, the ostensible owner is the transferor but the beneficial interest would be with the transferee. The registration certificate is not a document of title though it is certainly evidence of ownership. The decisions already referred to support this conclusion. (18) Ownership and registration of a vehicle with the appropriate authority are different matters, though in the normal course one should lead to the other. The scheme of the Act requires that the registration certificate should stand in the name of the owner of the vehicle. That is why the Act requires initially an application to be submitted by or on behalf of the owner and every subsequent transfer of ownership to be reported to the registering authority. This is with a view to ensure that the registration certificate reflects the ownership of the vehicle. Every owner of a vehicle ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies to show that it is not so. If that is not done, the registration certificate has to be acted upon. (19) On a consideration of the three Kerala decisions mentioned already, that is Sahadevan's case, Kamaluddin's case and Jacob's case as well as the precedents referred in those cases, it is difficult to hold that this court intended to lay down a wide proposition to the effect that in all cases and in all circumstances, registration certificate alone has to be acted upon. In Jacob's case, the party from whose possession the vehicle was seized was unable to produce any material before the court to show that he had a better claim than the financier in whose favour the registered owner had issued a letter of relinquishment. The financier claimed under the registered owner and naturally this court held that the person who could not establish better claim than a person who claimed under the registered owner could not be given interim custody. (20) What S.451 of the Code contemplates is the property to be made over to proper custody. In deciding on the person to whose custody property or vehicle has to be given, court would naturally be concerned with finding out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
