T C GOPALAN NAIR Vs. P KELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts that have given rise to this petition are these : Respondent 1 filed a complaint against his driver by name Chandran alleging that he had committed theft of his car bearing No.KLC 4055 along with RC and Insurance Certificate. The Sub Inspector of Police, Chickpet Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 10/73 against Chandran. He seized the car along with RC at Calicut from the possession of the petitinoer and produced them belore the Judicial Magistrate, First Class (1st Court), Bangalore City. The petitioner and respondent 1 both filed applications before the Magistrate praying that the car may be given to their respective custody. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that respondent 1 had a better claim for custody of the vehicle and accordingly he passed an order that the car be returned to respondent 1 during the pendency of investigation subject, of course, to certain conditions. It is this order that is challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) The car in question and the RC relating to it at the time of seizure were in the possession of the petitioner. The RC discloses that the owner of the car is the petitioner. At the time the car was produced before the Magistrate, the Police produced certain documents, which showed that the original owner was one Mohammed Sali and that he had made an application to the office of the RTO Bangalore to transfer the vehicle in the name of respondent 1 and similarly respondent 1 had made an application stating that he had purchased the said car. According to the first respondent, the vehicle was registered in his name and to that effect an endorsement had been made in the RC. This contention of respondent 1 requires further investigation in view of the fact that Mohammed Sali has filed an affidavit in this Court stating that he does not at all know respondent 1 and that he had not made any application for such a transfer. A perusal of the RC in this case goes to show that the vehicle is registered in the name of the petitioner in the office of the RTO Cannanore.

(3.) However, the learned Magitrate has lost sight of the fact that ordinarily when any property such as the motor vehicle is attached or seized by the police one has to consider the effect of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for finding out the true claimant before passing orders relating to such property during the pendency of the proceedings under S.516A of CrlPC. From, the provisions relating to the registration of motor vehicles under the Motor Vehicles Act, it is clear that the registration certificate is an essential necessity before any such motor vehicle can be made use of and that any person in whose! favour this certificate of registration is issued, obviously would be the owner thereof. In case of any transfer of ownership in respect of that motor vehicle, the procedure is contemplated under S. .31 of the Motor Vehicles Act and till any such transftr of ownership is entered :n the certificate of registration, one has to take it that the person in whose favour such a certificate of registration is issued by the Motor Transport Authorities is the owner and such a person is entiitied to remain in possession of the vehicle. Non-compliance of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act sometimes makes the owner responsible. In those circumstances, it would be ordinarily prudent and in consonance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to allow such a motor vehicle to remain in possession of such a person in whose name the certificate of registration stands. As it stands, the petitioner is entitled to the custody of the car.