made to the Court either under Section 451 or under Section 457 Cr. P.C., it will be improper to express any opinion on these contentions when the matter is under investigation and/or the inquiry has not been completed. Therefore, as between the registered owner and the purchaser, irrespective of allegations or counter-allegations as to the theft or re-possession of the vehicle in default of payment of hire purchase instalments, it is quite proper and practicable to entrust the interim custody of the vehicle to the registered owner, pending inquiry or trial; because it will be still open to the Court to make final order regarding the disposal after conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Since the vehicle produced before the Court is in the legal custody of the Court and only the physical custody is entrusted, pending final inquiry or trial, if ultimately it turns out that the person with whom the registered owner had hire purchase agreement has taken possession in due course in terms of hire purchase agreement, it is open to the Court to make proper order regarding disposal of the vehicle after the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. Therefore, merely because under Section 31(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle is likely to be cancelled by the Registering Authority on satisfying that the person with whom he had hire purchase agreement had re-possessed the vehicle, it cannot be said that the Court should entrust the interim custody of the vehicle to him. In the case on hand, no doubt with promptness, even before the vehicle was actually seized, a telegram has been sent to the Inspector by the respondent-firm intimating repossession of the vehicle in terms of the agreement and it would also appear the petitioner had also addressed a letter, the correctness of which however is sought to be disputed, admitting such repossession of the vehicle, but at the same time there is no denial of the fact that after investigating into the complaint lodged by Ismail, driver of the vehicle, and after completing the investigation, the police have also sent up a charge sheet. Therefore, there being controversy as to the existence of the second hire purchase agreement, whether the respondent-firm could re possess the vehicle or not are the questions which can properly be decided after conclusion of the inquiry or trial. The proper thing to do for the Magistrate was to entrust the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, who is the registered owner and not to the respondent.
