JUDGMENT
Manisana, J.
1. In this revision petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 4.10.90 and 30.10.90 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the first class at Gauhati in Case No. 1580 C of 1990.
2. The matter relates to the custody of a truck bearing No. AMA 7594. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 4.10.90 directed that the vehicle shall be kept in the custody of the Office-in-charge, Basistha Police Station. On 30.10.90, the learned Magistrate passed another order directing the Officer-in-charge, Basistha Police Station to give custody of the vehicle to the registered owner. Hence this petition.
3. Mr. G.N. Sahewala, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner purchased the vehicle from the respondent-1 with delivery of possession, and the vehicle was not seized by the Police from the possession of the respondent-1. Mr. J.M. Choudhury, the learned Counsel for the respondent-1 has opposed the contentions. In support of their respective contentions various documents have been filed.
4. Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, ‘the Act of 1939’ provides:
Where the person in possession of a motor vehicle is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire purchase agreement, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.
5. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short, ‘the Act of 1988’, came into force with effect from 1.7.89 vide SO 368E dated 22.5.89. The expression ‘owner1 as is defined under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988 is as follows:
‘Owner’ means a person in whose names motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.
6. A reading of Section 2(19) of the Act of 1939 indicates that the certificate of registration does not confer title. In other words, the certificate of registration is not the document of title in relation to a motor vehicle unlike the registered deed of sale of immovable property. Transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the sale of Goods Act and not under the provisions of the Act of 1939. But, it appears that, under Section 2(30) of the Act of 1988, a certificate of registration confers title. Be that as it may, I am not expressing any opinion about it and it is left open as the matter can be disposed of on other ground.
7. Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 217 of the Act of 1988 provides that not with-standing the repeal of the Act of 1939, any registration granted or issued under the repealed Act, namely the Act of 1939, shall continue to have effect after such commencement of the Act of 1988 under the same conditions and for the same period as if the Act of 1988 had not been passed. It may be observed here that the interim custody of the vehicle can be given to a person though not a registered owner under the Act of 1939 if other circumstances establish his ownership, and that one of well recognised principles of disposal of property under the Code is that the Court should normally restore the property to the person from whom it was seized. However, under the special circumstances it would warrant a departure from the salutary rules or practice. The learned Magistrate has without considering other materials or factors, held that since the vehicle stands in the name of the respondent-1, custody of the vehicle is to be given to the respondent-1. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, I am not inclined to examine all those documents filed before this Court. In that view of the matter the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate are set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Magistrate for disposal of the matter afresh in the light of the above observations.
