The registered owner of a motor vehicle is prima facie entitled to the custody of the vehicle during the course of a trial, unless there is clear and conclusive evidence to the contrary.

1. This criminal revision raises rather significant issues pertaining to the merits of the rival claims for the custody of a motor vehicle which is produced before a Criminal Court either as the subject-matter of an offence or as having been used for the commission of one. Of late such questions arise with persistent frequency and, therefore, merit a close analysis.

2. A case regarding the theft of the Motor-car No. DLK 1661 was registered at the town of Hapur in Uttar Pradesh. However, the vehicle above-said was found at and taken into possession in Ambala Cantonment by the police on 20th July, 1972, under Section 550 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the basis of the investigation that followed Manohar Lal and Piare Lal respondents have been sent up for trial on a charge under Section 411, Indian Penal Code. At an earlier stage this vehicle had been given on Sapurdari to a resident of Ambala Cantt. on an application moved by Manohar Lal accused-respondent. The prosecution, however, secured the cancellation of the Sapurdari above-mentioned. It was thereafter that the present petitioner Shri Deo Dutta Sharma claiming to be the registered owner of the vehicle and also the holder of its insurance certificate moved an application for obtaining the custody of the motor-car but on the other hand Manohar Lal accused-respondent also made a similar prayer before the trial Court. The learned Magistrate adverted to the claims of. the above said two persons to custody and rejected both on the ground that difficult questions of law and fact were involved as each side was relying on certain documents in their favour. He further observed that the question of the release of the motor vehicle to either party would be decided at the time of the final decision of the criminal case. Aggrieved by the rejection of his application the petitioner then moved the learned Sessions Judge. Ambala, in revision who, however, summarily rejected the same with an observation that no fault could be found with the order of the trial Magistrate.

3. With the rising inflation it has inevitably to be borne in mind that motor-vehicles now have become very valuable property - both as regards their cost and the use to which they are put. Indeed in cases of commercial vehicles the very livelihood of the owners depends on the employment thereof. Equally patent it is that motor-vehicles are best maintained in a running condition and a prolonged period of storage inevitably tends to deteriorate the machinery thereof and particularly the more vulnerable parts of the same. Again these vehicles are subject to easy pilferage of their parts and tampering with the same. The distressing fact has to be faced that the course of litigation inevitably tends to be tardy and the process of trial, appeal and revision even in a criminal case may well move into months, if not years. It is, therefore, inapt to decline to decide the issues of custody merely on the ground that some difficulty is involved in deciding the rival claims of the parties. Of course it is well-settled that the Criminal Court is not a forum for determining the complicated issues of title which must necessarily go for decision before a Civil Court ultimately. However, it is equally the duty of the trial Court in these matters to expeditiously decide as to who prima facie is entitled to possession and entrust the vehicle to such a claimant leaving the other parties to their remedies within the civil law. I am hence inclined to hold that it is an erroneous exercise of judicial discretion to casually postpone the issue of a custody of a motor vehicle by the trial Court till the final decision of a case which may still take a long time. Save in exceptional circumstances the issue of the custody of a motor-vehicle (with sufficient safeguards for its production during the course of the trial) must be expeditiously decided.

4. In the present case it does not seem to be in dispute that the petitioner is a registered