9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first respondent. The petitioner filed Cri.M.C. No. 853/84 before this Court. The order of the Sessions Judge was quashed, holding that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction. The Magistrate was directed to consider the applications expeditiously. The Magistrate considered the applications again and ordered interim custody of the bus to be given to the first respondent. The present petition Under Section 482 of the Criminal P.C. X filed by the petitioner is to quash that order. Second respondent is the State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor. 2. Some facts are necessary to appreciate the rival contentions. An order Under Section 451 is only for an interim custody pending enquiry or trial. Final orders after conclusion of the trial will have to be passed Under Section 452. When there are rival claims for interim custody, the Court may have to consider who is better entitled to interim custody. 3. The petitioner is the registered owner of the bus. Route permit also is in his name. First respondent also claims to be the owner of the bus. He says that there was an agreement of sale followed by a sale in his favour on 1-4-1984. He claims to have obtained possession also. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssession of the bus is not even attempted to be explained by the petitioner. Crime No. 351 of 1984 was admittedly registered at the instance of the petitioner. During the course of arguments, I asked the petitioner's counsel to explain as to how the first respondent came by possession of the bus. The counsel was not able to give me any explanation in that respect and he was only evading. That means the petitioner has no plausible answer as to how the first respondent came by possession of the bus. If the origin of possession was illegal, the petitioner could have specified the same. 7. These circumstances must naturally raise a presumption that the hands of the petitioner are not clean and his contentions are not genuine. If the first respondent came by possession of the bus illegally, the petitioner would not have kept quiet. First respondent cannot be blamed when he contends that Crime No. 351/84, the seizure of the bus and the consequent application for interim custody were all intended as short cuts to get at the bus. It is true that registration of the bus and the route permit were not transferred in favour of the first respondent even though on the basis of the joint appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court. Any failure to comply with the terms will entail the necessary consequences also. His ownership or right to possession may not operate against his obligation to the Court. The entrustment or custody will not invest him with any preferential right to ownership or even possession. In the eye of law his possession or custody is only that of Court. 9. The arrangement once made is not even final till the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. The Court is having the right to terminate the entrustment, get back the property from him and entrust it to somebody else whom the Court deems fit in appropriate cases even before the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. So much so, the person entrusted with the property may also be entitled to seek termination of the entrustment and surrender the property even before the conclusion of trial. Cases may arise where the person to whom interim custody was ordered may not care to undertake the obligation. In such cases the Court may have to make other arrangements for custody pending trial After giving custody the Court may for reasons think that his custody may not be proper. In such cases the Court can terminate the arrangement and make other a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to these aspects because this case both sides laid claim on the basis ownership as well as right to possession. 13. Petitioner is having registration and route permit in his name. First respondent was having possession of the vehicle along with all the papers which are normally expected to be in the possession of the owner or the person who is plying the vehicle. So also he is having to his credit the advantage of other papers and circumstances indicating that the vehicle was sold to him and possession handed over with initiation of steps for transferring registration and route permit in his favour. The only disadvantage for him is that he has not actually become the registered owner or the route permit holder. 14. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision in Jacob v. Jayabharat Credit Investment Co. in order to contend that he is having a better claim to get custody. In that decision, it was held : Interim custody of a motor vehicle has to be given to the registered owner. It cannot, at any rate, be given to a person who is not the registered owner even if the Police took possession of the same from him. This is because the vehicle will have to be kept idle as only a regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act on the part of the registered owner to avoid tax liability will not be of any avail, Katheena v. R.T.O., Kottayam 1978 KLT. 434 is such a decision and it will not help the petitioner. Further in this case, the steps for transfer of registration and route permit were not unilateral but bilateral on the basis of which the R.T.O. initiated steps also. 17. Different formalities are prescribed for effecting transfers of different items. But whether the procedural formalities are observed or not the real question (is) whether ownership and, if necessary, possession were transferred. If the answer is the affirmative there is a transfer and passing of beneficial interest. Transfer of a motor vehicle is no exception to it. It is a movable and transfer of ownership is governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and not under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even for a motor vehicle it is not the registration certificate that confers title. That is not the document of title just like sale deed in the case of a landed property. Registration certificate in relation to a motor vehicle is not having any better position than patta in revenue records in relation to landed prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Goods Act. Motor Vehicle being a movable transfer of ownership takes effect from the date of the sale and not from any other date. As between the transferor and the transferee, the sale is complete before the transfer of the registration certificate. Failure to report to, the registering authority may involve penalty prescribed by Section 31 of the Act or by Section 112 of then Act. The fact that failure to report involves 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, Prima facie, the person in whose name the registration certificate stands can be accepted to be the owner of the vehicle, But if there is evidence or material before the Court to show that the person in whose name the certificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
