( 1 ) THAT takes me to the other application, which is directed against the order, passed by the learned Magistrate on 20-2-1965 below Ex. 6 in the case. The learned Magistrate as also the learned Sessions Judge appear to have been carried away by the impression that as the motor car came to be attached from the custody of accused No 1 it has to be returned to him during the pendency of the trial subject of course to such conditions as may be laid down by the Court. However the learned Judge has lost sight of the fact that ordinarily when any property such as the motor vehicle is attached or seized by 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 sec. 516a of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears from the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 20 for issuing process against accused No. 1 under sec. 406 of the Indian Penal Code that he has found that there is a prima facie case about the complainant having invested money for the purpose of the motor car and that the same has been registered with the Re