The determination of possession and entitlement to possession of property during investigation and trial is crucial, and the Magistrate must exercise discretion judiciously in such matters.

The petitioner in both these revision petitions is the accused in Crime No. 708 of 1971 of the Cantonment Police Station Trivandrum. As against the petitioner and another person the 1st respondent laid a complaint before the District Magistrate, Trivandrum, on 22-9-1971, alleging offences under Section 406, 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C. in respect of KLV 1303, an Ambassador Sedan car. The allegation was that the 3rd respondent S. Vasumathi, registered owner, sold the care on 19-12-1968 to one Remla Beevi. who was the mother-in-law of the petitioner and sister of the 1st respondent, that she in her turn sold the same on 2-6-1969 to the 1st respondent and that Remla Beevi and the 1st respondent jointly entrusted the car to the petitioner on 15-7-1969 for this use with the direction by the 1st respondent that he should return to car to him whenever called upon to do so. But in spite of the demand, it is alleged that the petitioner did not return the car. Hence the 1st respondent filed the complaint alleging offences under various counts.

2. The District Magistrate sent the complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police for investigation under Section 155(3) Cr.P.C. During the investigation, the car was taken into custody from a worship where it was kept by the petitioner for some repairs. On production of the car before the learned Magistrate an on hearing both sides it was directed that the car should be entrust with a respectable third party on his furnishing a bond. The learned Magistrate was purport to have disposed of the property under Section 516-A Cr.P.C. It is against that order that the first of these revision petitions is filed. In pursuance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate a list of name with whom the care was to be entrusted was furnished by both sides. The learned Magistrate chose Shri S. Raghavan, one among the persons of the list furnished by the 1st respondent and he was directed by the learned Magistrate to take the car into custody on furnishing a bond for Rs. 20,000/- It is against that order that the second of these revision petitions is filed.

3. Now the dispute is straightened a sit is only between the petitioner on the one side and the 1st respondent on the other. Vasumathi the registered owner of the car, who is sub-sequently impleaded as the 3rd respondent in Crl.R.P. No. 428 of 1971, disclaimed her right to the car as the admitted that the car had already been sold to Remla Beevi who is the sister of the 1st respondent and the mother-in-law of the petitioner. Therefore the entrustment of the car to Vasumathi does not arise for consideration. In this regard reference is made to a decision of this Court in Sahadevan v. Sudhakaran (1970 Ker L.T. 782). That was a case disposed of under Section 517(1) Cr.P.C."any person claiming to be entitled to possession" which occurs in Section 517(1) Cr.P.C. was interpreted in respect of a motor vehicle that the person who is entitled to be in possession of it shall be the person in whose name the registration certificate of the mote vehicle stood. That decision does not apply to the facts of the present case. First of all that decision was rendered under the provisions of Section 517(1) Cr.P.C. Secondly, there the dispute was between the registered holder of a vehicle on the one side and the third party on the other and as between them it would be justified to hold that the registered owner shall be the person who is entitle to be in possession of the property. But in this case there are two difficulties in following the principle laid down in the afore said decision. Firstly, the registered holder did not claim the property, a her own, She has stated categorically that he car has already been sold to one Remla Beevi. So Vasumathi was not competent to come forward to claim the care as the registered owner. The possession of the car, in spite of the transfer in violation of the Rules is not with Vasumathi, Section 517(1) comes into operation only