ORDER
Pritpal Singh, J.
1. In this petition under Section 482, of Criminal P.C. the petitioner Sat Singh has challenged the validity of the- orders of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, dated 24-12-1985 (Annexure P.I) and of the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar, dated 25-1-1986 (Annexure P. 2) by which his prayer for the release of a truck on supurdari in his favour was declined.
2. The facts of this case are that the petitioner Sat Singh was owner of a truck bearing registration No. PUX 5040. This truck was stolen and was eventually recovered from Pal Singh and Tejinder Singh accused who are being tried under Section 411, Penal Code. The trial Court released the truck on supurdari in favour of the petitioner vide an order dated 28-2-1985 on furnishing security in the sum of Rs. 100,000/-. Subsequently the petitioner agreed to sell the truck in favour of Tarlochan Singh for Rs. 82,000/-. Tarlochan Singh paid a part of the sale price i.e. Rs. 47,500/- to Sat Singh and possession of the truck was delivered to him. On the application of the petitioner the supurdari in his favour was cancelled by the trial Court on 2-12-1985. Tarlochan Singh applied on 13-12-1985 for the truck being released in his favour on supurdari. The petitioner also filed an application on 18-12-1985 that the truck may be again given to him on supurdari. The trial Court rejected both the applications vide his impugned order dated 24-12-1985 (Annexure P/l). Against this order both the claimants filed revision petitions which were heard by the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar. He dismissed the revision petition of Sat Singh, the present petitioner, but accepted the revision petition of Tarlochan Singh directing that the truck be handed over to him on supurdari on his furnishing security in the amount of Rs. 100,000/-.
3. On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I find no infirmity in the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Ropar (Annexure P/2). Sat Singh was owner of the truck and it was given to him on supurdari by the trial Court on 28-2-1985. It was not disputed before the learned Sessions Judge that Sat Singh thereafter agreed to sell the truck to Tarlochan Singh and delivered possession of the truck to the latter on receipt of major portion of the sale price. Evidently, in these circumstances Sat Singh was not interested in keeping the truck on supurdari. He, therefore, got the supurdari in his favour cancelled on 2-12-1985. Since Tarlochan Singh was then in possession of the truck, he applied for its supurdari on 13-12-1985. For reasons best known to Sat Singh he also filed an application on 18-12-1985 to get the truck on supurdari all over again.
4. The Courts below have rightly held that Sat Singh, while he was holding the truck on supurdari, was not competent to enter into an agreement to sell the truck and deliver possession thereof to Tarlochan Singh in violation of the conditions on which the truck was released to him on supurdari, The application of Sat Singh for obtaining the truck on supurdari all over again was, therefore, rightly rejected by the Courts below.
5. The learned trial Court did not agree to release the truck on supurdari in favour of Tarlochan Singh also on the ground that the truck had not so far been registered in his name under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court observed that merely the agreement of sale in his favour did not entitle Tarlochan Singh to obtain the truck on supurdari. This finding was reversed by the learned Sessions Judge and in my opinion rightly so. In view of Section 451, Criminal P.C. which corresponds to Section 516-A of the earlier Act of 1898, when any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending conclusion of such inquiry or trial. In the present case, therefore, the Court had to. determine as to who was the proper person to whom the custody of the truck should be given. The possession of the truck had admittedly been delivered by Sat Singh to Tarlochan Singh in pursuance of an agreement of sale after receiving bulk of the sale price. It is true that so far the ownership of the truck has not been transferred in favour of Tarlochan Singh, but having been delivered Posession of the truck in pursuance of the agreement of sale, he is, in equity, entitled to retain possession of the vehicle in supurdari to a prospective vendee. It is not absolutely essential that the vehicle must be given in custody only to the person in whose name it stands registered.
6. The respondent has placed reliance on Hardam Singh v. Vidya Sagar (1974) 1 Cri LT 61 : 1974 Cri LJ 1158 (Punj & Har), wherein it was observed that the person in whose name the vehicle stands registered under the Motor Vehicles Act is prima facie the owner of the Motor Vehicle and is entitled to its custody unless any other person establishes his superior title or claim over it. There can be no quarrel with this proposition. In the present case Tarlochan Singh having paid major portion of the sale price to Sat Singh and having been delivered possession of the Vehicle indeed has a superior title to claim custody of the vehicle under Section 451.
7. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the instant petition which is hereby dismissed.
