Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the interim custody of a motor vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement:

• Legal Principle: The possession of a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement does not confer absolute ownership on the hirer; therefore, the financier is entitled to seize the vehicle upon default by the hirer (!) .
• Criminal Liability: The seizure of the vehicle by the financier in exercise of their contractual right does not constitute theft under Sections 378 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) because there is no mens rea (dishonest intention) involved (!) .
• Definition of "Owner": Under Section 2(30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the hirer is deemed the "owner" for the purposes of registration, insurance, and fitness certificates, but this does not equate to absolute proprietary rights until all instalments are paid (!) .
• Interim Custody: When a vehicle seized by a financier due to default is produced before a criminal court following a theft complaint, the financier is generally entitled to the interim custody of the vehicle under Section 451 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) (!) .
• Burden of Proof: It is the duty of the financier to prima facie establish the existence of the hire-purchase agreement, the occurrence of default, and the right to seize the vehicle before a criminal court to obtain an order in their favor (!) .
• Judicial Precedent: The court distinguished cases where the registered owner (hirer) was granted custody in situations involving simple agreements of sale or repairs, noting that such principles do not apply when the vehicle is subject to a hire-purchase agreement with specific forfeiture clauses (!) .