The transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle takes place from the date of sale and not from the date on which the name of the transferee is recorded in the certificate of registration.

Headnote:
SALE OF GOODS ACT - TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION - CUSTODY OF VEHICLE - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant, Kishan Pandurang Kagde, purchased a motor lorry from the accused, Baldevsingh Giansingh, for Rs. 44,000. He paid Rs. 31,000 and took possession of the vehicle. The accused signed documents acknowledging receipt of payment and delivery of possession. The complainant applied to the Regional Transport Officer for transfer of the vehicle in his name, but the transfer was not completed. The accused later took the vehicle from the complainant and drove it away. The complainant filed a complaint of theft against the accused. The Magistrate ordered that the vehicle be given in the custody of the accused pending the trial.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the transfer of ownership of the vehicle took place from the date of sale and not from the date on which the name of the transferee was recorded in the certificate of registration. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 31, only require that a report of the transfer be made to the registering authority after the change of ownership has taken place. The Court also held that the Magistrate erred in giving custody of the vehicle to the accused, who had allegedly stolen it from the complainant. The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the Magistrate's order and direct that the vehicle be given in the custody of the complainant pending the trial.
Issues: 1. Whether the transfer of ownership of the vehicle took place from the date of sale or from the date on which the name of the transferee was recorded in the certificate of registration? 2. Whether the Magistrate erred in giving custody of the vehicle to the accused, who had allegedly stolen it from the complainant?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The transfer of ownership of the vehicle takes place from the date of sale and not from the date on which the name of the transferee is recorded in the certificate of registration. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, Section 31, only require that a report of the transfer be made to the registering authority after the change of ownership has taken place. 2. The Magistrate erred in giving custody of the vehicle to the accused, who had allegedly stolen it from the complainant. The Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the Magistrate's order and direct that the vehicle be given in the custody of the complainant pending the trial.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the complainant's application and made the rule absolute. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and it is ordered that the motor lorry bearing registration No MHB 3468 be given in the custody of the complainant Kisan Pandurang Kagde pending conclusion of the trial on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to produce the vehicle in Court whenever caned upon to do so pending the disposal of the trial.

JUDGMENT

SAPRE J-This criminal application has been filed by the original complainant Kishan Pandurang Kagde to challenge the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, on 3rd March 1975 under section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing that the motor lorry, which was the subject-matter of the offence of theft, be given in the custody of original accused No.1 Baldevsingh Giansingh pending conclusion of the trial on a bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety in the like amount to produce the vehicle in Court whenever called upon to do so.

2. The motor lorry bearing registration No. MHB 3468 was owned by accused No. 1 Baldevsingh. On 16th December 1974, he agreed to sell it to the complainant Kishan for a consideration of Rs. 44,000. Out of this amount, an amount of Rs. 31,000 was paid by the complainant to accused No.1 by 31st December 1974. The remaining amount was to be paid on 20th January 1975 on which date the vehicle was to be transferred in the name of the complainant. According to the complainant, possession of the vehicle was given to him by accused No. I and since then the vehicle had remained in his possession. Certain documents were passed by accused No.1 in favour of the complainant acknowledging receipt of the payment of the amount and the fact of delivery of possession of the vehicle to the complainant. It was mentioned in these writings that henceforward the complaint would be responsible for all liabilities in respect of the vehicle, although the vehicle had not yet been transferred in his name in the records of the Regional Transport Officer. It appears that on 27th January 1975, the parties wanted to finalise the transfer by going to the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, but could not do so as there was heavy rush in the office and they agreed to effect the transfer on the following day. On that night, the vehicle was parked at Katha Bazar. It was in possession of Kishan and his driver Madhukar. Baldevsingh and his driver Jailsingh (accused No.2) were also present at Katha Bazar. When Madhukar went to take his food and while Kishan was inside the vehicle, the two accused suddenly started the vehicle with Kishan still inside and drove it to Sion Koliwada. At Sion Koliwada, Kishan found himself amongst hostile people on the side of Baldevsingh. He, therefore, jumped out of the vehicle and came to Katha Bazar. His driver Madhukar lodged a complaint of theft at Pydhonie Police Station against Baldevsingh and Jailsingh. In the meantime, the two accused had taken the vehicle to Nasik. The police arrested both the accused at Nasik and also seized the vehicle and brought it to Bombay. The police registered an offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code against Baldevsingh and Jailsingh.

3. On 20th February 1975, accused No.1 made an application before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 2nd Court, Mazgaon, Bombay, for return of the vehicle. His main contention in that application was that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and hence it should be returned to him. Kishan also made an application to the learned Magistrate for return of the vehicle to him. His contention was that he had bought the vehicle from accused No. 1 and had paid a substantial amount out of the price to accused No. 1. The vehicle had also been given in possession of the complainant by accused No.1, as it was sold to the complainant by accused No.1. Accused No.1 had also handed over forms duly signed for the transfer of the said vehicle in the name of the complainant. Only the formality of effecting the transfer in the certificate of registration had remained. But as the complainant had bought the vehicle from accused No.1 and accused No.1 had also delivered possession of the vehicle to the complainant, it was proper that custody of the vehicle should be given to the complainant.

4. The learned Magistrate went through the documents produced by the complainan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis