The central legal point established was that the agreement to sale and transfer of possession determine ownership rights and influence the interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC.

H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal revision petition under Sections 397/401 CrPC is directed against the order dated 11.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhim, (for short the `trial Court hereinafter) in FIR Case No. 356/02 and Final Report (Negative) 57/02 P.S. Bhim whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Sections 451 and 457 CrPC seeking interim custody of the truck No. RJ-01-G/2744, however, allowed the application filed by respondent No. 2 Pannalal under Sections 451, 457 CrPC and released the custody of the truck Supardginama and Jamanatnama in favour of respondent No. 2 Pannalal on certain conditions. Aggrieved of the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present revision petition are that one Paras, said to be driver of respondent No. 2 lodged a first information report No. 356/02 with P.S. Bhim, inter alia, alleging therein that the truck referred above is owned by respondent No. 2 and he was engaged as a driver for transporting 75 bags of Sugar to Kareda. It was alleged that sugar belonging to the petitioner was to be transported in the said truck and the truck was hired for Rs. 925/-. The complainant parked the truck outside the hotel of the petitioner for loading sugar bags and went for meal. When he came back he did not find the truck there and saw that the truck was standing behind the hotel without wheels. On this information, crime report for the offence under Sections 406 and 379 IPC was registered and the investigation ensued. After investigation, police filed negative final report. A notice of negative final report was served on the respondent. A protest petition was filed by complainant Paras. The complainant himself was examined as a witness and produced respondent No. 2 and Pushkar Singh as witnesses.

3. The trial Court on perusal of the material placed before it, came to the conclusion that the reasons assigned by the police for submitting negative final report are well-founded and prima facie no offence against the petitioner appears to have been made out. The trial Court satisfied with the conclusion arrived at by the police in filling negative final report and accordingly negative final report was accepted and the protest petition came to be dismissed by order dated 18.2004. The order dated 18.2004 dismissing the protest petition and accepting the negative final report has not been challenged and it has attained finality.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 Pannalal. I have also gone through the order impugned as well as record of the trial Court.

5. Respondent No. 2 Pannalal sold the truck in question for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-in favour of petitioner Kistoor Chand on 18.7.2002 by agreement to sale. The agreement to sale is on record and has not been disputed by the Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. In the agreement, it has been mentioned that the said truck was sold by respondent No. 2 Pannalal to petitioner Kistoor Chand on 18.7.2002 for a sum of Rs. 1,80,000/-and out of Rs. 1,80,000/-a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/-had been received by the vendor respondent Pannalal and for remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/-, it was agreed that the respondent will have right to receive the said amount within five months. It has also been stated by the respondent in the agreement that after this agreement, the respondent will have no right or claim towards the said truck. In the agreement it has further been stated that the possession of the vehicle has been handed over to the petitioner voluntarily and in sound disposing of mind without there being any pressure. The Form No. 29 notice of ownership of motor vehicle and the Form No. 30 the report of transfer of the motor vehicle had been signed by respondent No. 2 Pannalal and handed over to the petitioner. So far as the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/-is con