Hon’ble Ashok Srivastava, J.—This revision has been filed by the revisionist feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8.4.2003 passed by Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Areas), Jhansi.

2. The property in dispute is a motor vehicle which is a jeep having its Registration No. UP-93 H 2870. This jeep is the case property of Case Crime No. 529/03 under Section 394/411 I.P.C., P.S. Nawabad, Jhansi. It appears that during the course of investigation, the said vehicle was recovered by the police. The opposite party No. 2, Kamlesh Kumar Dubey, and the revisionist applied to the learned lower Court for custody of the vehicle during pendency of the case. After hearing both the parties and the State, the learned lower Court was of the opinion that opposite party No. 2 is entitled to the custody of the vehicle and, therefore, he released the vehicle to the custody of opposite party No. 2 on certain terms and conditions. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the present revision has been filed.

3. When this revision was listed for hearing, no one was present even in the revised from the side of opposite party No. 2. Learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. were present who were heard in detail.

4. It is the admitted case that the vehicle in question is the case property of Case Crime No. 529 of 2003. It is also admitted that opposite party No. 2 is the registered owner of the vehicle but his ownership is not absolute. From the perusal of the Hire Purchase Agreement, it is evident that opposite party No. 2 had taken a loan of about 2 lacs from the revisionist and he purchased the said vehicle from this loan. From the perusal of the registration certificate it is clear that the registration certificate was subject to Hire Purchase Agreement with Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. This fact has been clearly mentioned by the R.T.O. concerned at the foot of the registration certificate. The learned lower Court has mentioned in its impugned order that opposite party No. 2 had paid a sum of Rs. 2,11,100/- to the Finance Company. It has been further mentioned that the said company has not given a receipt for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- which was actually paid by opposite party No. 2 to the revisionist. On the other hand it was contended before the learned lower Court from the side of the revisionist that a sum of Rs. 36,000/- is due to be paid to the revisionist from the side of opposite party No. 2. The learned lower Court has specifically mentioned in his order that all these facts are admitted. Despite he released the vehicle to the custody of opposite party No. 2 only on the basis that opposite party No. 2 is the registered owner of the said vehicle. It appears that the learned Judge did not peruse the entire registration certificate with caution. Probably he forgot to see the endorsement made on the said registration certificate by the R.T.O. that this registration certificate was subject to the Hire Purchase Agreement which is indicative of the facts that ownership of the said vehicle was subject to the terms and conditions agreed into between the hirer and owner. It also appears that he did not care to take notice of the fact contained in the agreement that it was the revisionist who was the owner of the said vehicle and opposite party No. 2 was only a hirer as per terms and conditions. He should have taken notice of the fact that registration certificate produced before him was not absolute in favour of opposite party No. 2 but it was a conditional certificate and the conditions were contained in the relevant Hire Purchase Agreement.

5. During the course of argument from the side of the revisionist my attention has been drawn towards the judgments reported in (i) Manipal Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. T. Bangarappa and another, 1994 Supp. (1) SCC 507; (ii) Charanjit Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra, 2001 (43) ACC 691 SC; (iii) B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd., Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1999(3) Mh LJ 173; (iv) Ashok Leyland Finance v. Sta