Does the dictum in Tarun Bhargava v. State of Haryana (2003 (3) KLT 397 Punjab & Haryana) as approved by Honourable Justice K.R. Udayabhanu in the unreported decision in Shibi Francis v. State of Kerala represent the correct law applicable in Kerala now? Does the decision in Shibi Francis need reconsideration? These questions are to be sorted out in this Crl.M.C.

2. These Crl.M.Cs. are directed against a common order passed by the learned Magistrate. The rival contestants had claimed release of a vehicle in their favour under S.451 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate by the impugned common order directed that the vehicle he handed over to the registered owner of the vehicle in preference to the person who claimed himself to be the present owner respectively. I shall hereafter refer to them as the registered owner and present owner. The present owner claimed rights from a finance company, I shall hereafter refer to them as the financier, who had admittedly advanced amounts to the registered owner for purchase of the vehicle under a hypothecation agreement, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-XII. The financier had also appeared before the learned Magistrate and supported t