The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration certificate in the name of a party cannot be the sole basis for determining ownership when the vehicle, under an agreement, is in the lawful custody of another party.

K.C. Sood, J.— Under challenge in this petition is the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Shimla dated July 14, 2004. By this order, the vehicle, subject-matter of dispute, was seized by the Police in a case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, was directed to be released to Ram Pal Chauhan, respondent No. 3, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the application of Sanjay Kumar, the petitioner, for release of the vehicle, was rejected.

2. Aggrieved, Sanjay Kumar is in this petition under Section 482/ 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution.

3. Brief facts leading to the seizure of the vehicle by the Police and its subsequent release to Ram Pal Chauhan are :

4. Prem Singh Thakur, respondent No. 3, was the original owner of Bus "Swaraz Mazda". Sanjay Kumar, the petitioner, entered into an agreement with Prem Singh Thakur for the purchase of the vehicle. As per the agreement, the total sale consideration was fixed at rupees 5 lacs out of which the petitioner paid rupees 1.50 lacs and the balance amount of rupees 3.50 lacs was agreed to be paid in 21 installments for which cheques were given to Prem Singh Thakur. One of the conditions of the sale was that the petitioner was to pay the entire balance amount within a period of two years. The possession of the Bus was handed over to Sanjay Kumar. Prem Singh Thakur also executed General Power of Attorney in the name of Sanjay Kumar copy of which is annexed as Annexure-P2 with the petition. Thus, the original owner of the vehicle handed over the possession of the Bus in question to the petitioner on June 7, 2001 and authorized him to ply the said vehicle. The petitioner was also made liable to pay the taxes and any fines imposed on this vehicle and to act as owner of the vehicle for nil purposes. The petitioner was also required to pay the insurance and other charges. It was stipulated that in case the petitioner fails to pay the balance amount of the sale consideration to Prem Singh Thakur within a period of two years, then Prem Singh Thakur would be entitled to take back the possession of the vehicle and the agreement would be treated as "cancelled". This agreement was executed on June 7, 2001. General Power of Attorney was also executed by Prem Singh Thakur on the same day which authorized Sanjay Kumar to ply the vehicle and do all things necessary on behalf of the original owner relating to this vehicle. At the time of the sale agreement, the vehicle was under hypothecation with Ashok Leyland Finance Limited and the petitioner was authorized to make payments of the balance amount of loan taken by Prem Singh for the purchase of the vehicle.

5. On June 26, 2004, respondent No. 2 Ram Pal Chauhan lodged a First Information Report with Police Station, Boileauganj regarding the theft of the vehicle in question under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. According to the petitioner, Prem Singh had asked the petitioner to pay the remaining amount to his Financer, i.e, Ashok Leyland Finance Limited. To enable him to pay the amount to the Financer, the petitioner took loan of rupees 2.70 lacs from M/s. Syal Leasing Limited through its Shimla Branch on April 16, 2004 out of which rupees 2.50 lacs were paid to the original Financer Ashok Leyland Finance Limited on April 16, 2004. This payment was acknowledged by the Financer by a receipt Annexure-P5.

7. Prem Singh Thakur, after having received the entire sale consideration of the sale amount of the vehicle in question as per agreement, gave an affidavit to the petitioner acknowledging the receipt of the installments as also receipt of rupees 2.65 lacs on April 12, 2004, Annexure-P3. It is the further case of the petitioner that Prem Singh did not transfer the vehicle to the petitioner on one pretext or the other and put him off from time to time. The petitioner, however, remained in lawful possession of the vehicle and paid