The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the registered owner's entitlement under the Motor Vehicles Act in determining the interim custody of a seized vehicle under Section 451 Cr. P. C.

( 1 ) THIS petition filed under Section 482 Cr. P. C. , is directed against the order dated 1-2-80 passed by the sessions Judge, Mandya, in Cr. R. F. No. 1/80, whereby he set aside the, order dated 17-1 80 passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Mandya, in C. C. No. 765/1979 on the file of his Court entrusting the custody of the vehicle myn 3839 to the registered owner of the vehicle and instead directed to entrust the custody thereof to the respondent.

( 2 ) ON the complaint dated 7-10-1979 lodged bye the Motor Vehicles Inspector r. V. Venstesh of R. T. O's Office mandya, that at about 8-45 P. M. on that day the bus MYN 3939 in question detained by him for non-payment of tax and !ett in the custody of watchman gurumallaiah of R. T. O's office had been stolen away by some unknown persons by assaulting the watchman, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Town police Station, Mandya, registered a case in Crime No. 154/79 for the offences under Sections 379 and 353 I. P. C. and issued F. I. R. to the court He thereafter, took up investigation of the case. On 8-10-79, during investigation of the case, he seized the bus from the premises of the pressing Components (India) Pvt. Ltd. , mysore, and detained it in the Police custody, and sent a report of the seizure of the bus to the court. Both the petitioner, U. Kariyappa said to be the proprietor of Arakere Union motor Service and the respondent P. Srikantaiah filed applications before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandya, claiming the interim custody of the vehicle, as provided under Section 451 cr. P. C. While the former asked for the interim custody of the vehicle on the ground that he was the registered owner thereof and when the same was detained by the Motor vehicles, Inspector on 6-10-79 for nonpayment of the tax, it was stolen, away, the latter asked to entrust the same to his custody on the ground that he had purchased the same from the former under an agreement of sale dated 30-7-79 and after taking delivery of the vehicle he had got it repaired and made road-worthy spending a huge amount of Rs. 50,000 and when he had left the bus in the premises of the pressing Components (India) Private ltd. , near Mysore, in his absence the Police had seized the bus from the said premises with the connivance of the previous owner. He also produced a photostat copy of agreement of sale dated 30-7-79 written on a stamp paper, purporting to be executed and signed by the previous owner. Both showed their willingness to furnish adequate surety and abide by any conditions imposed by the court to produce the vehicle before the court whenever required. They also filed objections oppossing each other's application. The peititioner-herein U. Kariyappa, who was admittedly the registered owner of the vehicle denied any knowledge about the agreement of sale of the vehicle. Alternatively, he also contended that the agreemet did not confer any ownership of the vehicle to the purchaser P. Srikantaiah. In the charge-sheet filed la,ter on by the Police on 15-11-1979, six persons, including D. Papaiah the father of p. Snkantaiah; who claimed to have purchased the vehicle arid K. Krishnappa, his close relative were shown as accused who had actually removed the bus when it was detained by the motor Vehicles Inspector on 7-10-79.

( 3 ) THE learned Chief Judicial Magistrate mandya, alter hearing the, advocates appearing for the parties on both sides and relying upon the decisions of this Court in T. C. Gopalan Nair v. Kelu1973 (1) Mys. L. J. 420. , and Gurappa Hanamanthappa kantnalli v. Shivlingappa. Dundappa Tadke 1977 (2) Kar. L. J. 129. , and in view of the fact that U. Kariyappa, the petitioner herein was the registered owner of the vehicle and he was liable to pay the tax as also responsible for all the legal consequences, held he was the proper person lor the interim custody of the vehicle and in that view he made an order dated. 17th january 1980 entrusting the interim custody of the, vehicle to