possession as an agent of the registered owner. The mandate under Section 61B is to issue notice to the person who is in legal possession of the vehicle, necessarily the registered owner of the vehicle, unless otherwise it is evident that it was in the legal possession of somebody else by way of an agreement for hire purchase or hypothecation etc. In the absence of an agreement for hire purchase or hypothecation of the vehicle or legal possession of somebody else other than the registered owner, the mandate stood as satisfied when notice was given to the registered owner. During the course of arguments, the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in 1996 KHC 17 was brought to the notice of this Court in order to advance the argument to the effect that the driver of the vehicle was in lawful possession of the vehicle at the time of seizure and no notice was served on him. The decision rendered by this Court in 1996 KHC 17 stood on a different footing as the vehicle was subject to a hire purchase agreement wherein owner-hirer relationship subsists. The financier really stands as the owner of the vehicle till all the instalments due under the hire purchase agreement have been paid to the satisfaction of the financier. Till that time, the legal status of the registered owner, though the vehicle registered in his/her name, would be as that of a hirer. In the present case, the
