Interim custody of seized vehicles is interlocutory, and registration certificates are strong evidence but not conclusive of title.
An order granting interim custody of a seized vehicle under Section 451 CrPC is interlocutory because it does not finally determine the parties' rights, so revision under Section 397(2) is barred and revisional interference on that basis is without jurisdiction. In deciding interim custody, the registration certificate is relevant evidence of ownership but not a conclusive document of title; the court must assess the better prima facie claim on the materials before it. Interim custody therefore need not invariably go to the registered owner, and a custody order favouring another claimant will not be interfered with unless shown to be legally unsustainable.
Issues: (i) whether an order granting interim custody of a seized vehicle under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was interlocutory so as to bar revision under Section 397(2) of the Code; (ii) whether interim custody of a motor vehicle must invariably be given to the person in whose name the registration certificate stands.
Issue (i): whether an order granting interim custody of a seized vehicle under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was interlocutory so as to bar revision under Section 397(2) of the Code.
Analysis: An order under Section 451 determining temporary custody between the parties does not finally decide their rights and is, therefore, interlocutory in nature. The bar under Section 397(2) applies, and the Sessions Court could not treat such an order as revisable merely because it thought the order was of an intermediary character. The revisional interference by the Sessions Court was thus without jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The order of the Magistrate was interlocutory, revision before the Sessions Court was barred, and the Sessions Court's order was liable to be set aside.
Issue (ii): whether interim custody of a motor vehicle must invariably be given to the person in whose name the registration certificate stands.
Analysis: The registration certificate is important evidence of ownership, but it is not a document of title and does not conclusively determine the right to possession. The statutory scheme of motor vehicle registration shows that registration follows ownership, and transfer of ownership is governed by general law. While the registered owner will ordinarily have a prima facie claim, the opposite party may show a better title or superior claim on the materials placed before the court. In proceedings under Section 482, the court will not reappraise facts afresh where the Magistrate has considered the relevant materials and applied the correct legal principles.
Conclusion: Interim custody need not be confined invariably to the registered owner, and the Magistrate's order granting custody to the accused was not shown to be illegal or fit for interference.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Sessions Court's revisional order succeeded, while the challenge to the Magistrate's custody order failed. The Magistrate's order was restored and the vehicle remained with the person found by the Magistrate to have the better claim.
Ratio Decidendi: For interim custody under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court must determine the proper person entitled to possession on the basis of relevant materials; the registration certificate is strong evidence of ownership but not conclusive, and an order of interim custody under Section 451 is interlocutory and not revisable under Section 397(2).
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
