“22. Perusal of the record shows that present case revolves around registration of ownership of a Santo Car bearing no. DL3CAJ 6290, used in the commission of offence on 20.02.2022. In this regard, verification report of aforesaid vehicle from concerned RTO official is very crucial. Record reveals that as per reply received from DTO, South Zone, the aforesaid vehicle is registered in the name Shameem Ahmed, appellant/ accused herein. During the present proceedings in revision petition, fresh and detailed verification report was called by this Court. Perusal of the said verification report along-with certified copy received from concerned RTO offices shows that aforesaid Car from the period 31.01.2006 to 27.07.2006 was registered in the name of Manab Bhattacharjee. Further, from the period 28.07.2006 to 01.01.2018, it was registered in the name of Girish Kumar. Thereafter, till date, it is registered in the name of accused i.e. Shameem Ahmad. Further, the registration of aforesaid vehicle was valid till 30.01.2021 and thereafter, according to the RTO office, no extension was granted for the said vehicle. It means that as per record, till date, the appellant/ accused is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. The aforesaid fact on record, coupled with the case of prosecution prima facie indicates of committing a criminal offence and cannot be overlooked and gives rise to constitute a criminal offence. The contention for adjudication on pure question of fact which may be adequately adjudicated upon only by the trial court and while doing so, even the submissions made on points of law can also be more appropriately gone into by the trial court in this case. This Court does not deem it proper, and therefore, cannot be persuaded to have a pre-trial before the actual trial begins. A threadbare discussion of various facts and circumstances, as they emerge from the allegations made against the accused, is being purposely avoided by this Court for the reason, lest the same might cause any prejudice to either side during trial. But it shall suffice to observe that on the basis of material available on record including the complaint, a grave suspicion arises against accused for having committed offences u/sec. 33/52 Delhi Excise Act and therefore, the impugned order passed by Ld Trial Court,
