The registration certificate alone does not establish ownership of a motor vehicle and that the real ownership may be with someone else.

JUDGMENT :

J. Das, J. - This criminal revision arises out of the revisional order dated 7-9-1987 passed by Sri G.R. Dubey, Sessions Judge, Bolangir in criminal revision No. 62 of 1987 allowing the revision and setting aside the order dated 17-7-1967 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonepur in ICC Case No. 24 of 1987 directing to keep the motor vehicle in question in the zima of the accused who is the Petitioner in-this revision.

2. The motor vehicle in question is a truck bearing registration No. ORU 5767 and the said truck was in possession of the accused Balaram Nayak.

3. The complainant Bijaya Kumar Nayak at first lodged an F. I. R. in the Sonepur Police Station alleging that he is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. ORU 5767 and the said truck was forcibly removed by the accused Balaram Nayak (Petitioner) to his Saw Mill. As the police did not take any action, the complainant filed a complaint alleging that he is the owner of the truck bearing registration No. ORU 5767 and the registration certificate stands in his name. The complainant further alleged that the accused (Petitioner) is his adoptive father and he (complainant) was residing with him since his childhood and due to lack of good relationship, he left the house of his adoptive parents and went to village Nuagaon in the district of Cut tack along with the vehicle in question since 1986. It has been further alleged that for some time the complainant plyed the vehicle in the district of Cuttack. But as the transport business did not pick up well, he brought the vehicle to the district of Bolangir and plyed there. On 25-5-1987 in the early morning while the vehicle in question was parked near the agricultural farm, Sonepur, the accused (Petitioner) with the help of some persons forcily took away the truck from the driver and drove the same to his Saw Mill at Sonepur along with a sum of Rs. 9,000/- which the driver was keeping for purchase of new tyres.

4. The initial statement of the complainant was recorded and one witness on behalf of the complainant was also examined on S. A. u/s 200, Code of Criminal Procedure and the learned S. D. J. M., Sonepur took cognizance u/s 379, T. P. C. on 3-6-1987. On the same day a petition u/s 94, Code of Criminal Procedure was also filed on behalf of the complainant for issuing search warrant. Vide order dated 4-6-1987 it was directed to issue search warrant. On 1-7-1987, the complainant filed a petition u/s 451. Code of Criminal Procedure claiming that he is the owner of the vehicle and the vehicle should be given in his zima during the pendency of the trail. On 2-7-1987 the objection was filed on behalf of the accused. The petition u/s 451, Code of Criminal Procedure was heard on 10-7-1987 and on 17-7-1987 the learned S. D. J. M. passed the order to give the vehicle in the zima of the accused. The claim of the complainant over the truck ORV 5767 is based upon the fact that the registration certificate stands in his name.

The accused Balaram Nayak claimed the ownership of the vehicle. He stated that he purchased the vehicle in 1977 for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/- He has further stated that Natabar Mohanty and Abhaya Charan Mohanty were the partners and they were also the owners of the vehicle and the vehicle was registered in the name of Natabar Mohanty. After the partnership was dissolved. The vehicle fell to the share of Abhaya Charan Mohanty who transferred, the ownership of the vehicle in favour of the accused (Petitioner). The accused (Petitioner),also stated that out of the consideration of Rs, 60,000/-, he paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in the first instalment and the remaining Rs. 30,000/- was paid by him in 3 equal instalments. After the entire consideration amount was paid, the registration certificate was transferred in favour of the Petitioner (accused), at the desire of the accused, as the complainant was all along residing with the accused as his son and as the accused decided that the complain