JUDGMENT 1. - There two petitions arise out of the order dated August 19, 1980 of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur whereby, the interim custody of truck No. RRQ 3394 pending disposal of the criminal trial was directed to be given to Ramsukh. The registered owners of the truck are Ramsukh and Tulsiram. is said that Tulsiram sold this truck to Shyamkishan for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- with the consent of Ram Sukh on 28-4-1979, a stamped agreement was executed by Tulsiram. It is stated in the agreement that the truck is sold for a consideration of Rs. 40,000/- Rs. 10,101 have been received as tamest money. Further amount of Rs. 10,000/- will be paid on 7-5-1979 and remaining amount of Rs. 20,000/-on 7-6-79. It is also mentioned in that written agreement that truck No. RRQ 3394 has been handed over to Shyamkishan. This written agreement was executed by Tulsiram on behalf of himself and Ramsukh. It is alleged that on 21-9-1979, the truck was taken away by force by Tulsiram and others from near Gol Building, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Shyamkishan lodged the first information report in police station, Sardarpura. A case was registered, the usual investigation taken up and during the course of investigation on 24-9-79 the truck taken away by force the Workshop of Pokarram. After completing the investigation, police filed a charge sheet in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. Charge under Section 379, Cr P C. has been framed against Tulsiram and others. Shyamkishan, Tulsiram and Ramsukh applied for interim custody of the truck and the trial court directed its custody to Ramsukh on the ground that he was one of the registered owners of the truck. During the investigation the statement of Shyamkishan was recorded, who stated about his possession and sale of the truck. Radhakishan, Gulab, Bhagatsingh, Sohanlal and Bhaawa lal are the witnesses regarding the theft. Pokarram has stated that Tulsiram gave him the truck for repairs.Learned trial, .count directed ,the custody of the truck to Ramsukh on 'the ground that he was one of the registered co-owners of the truck. Aggrieved by this order, Shyamkishan has preferred criminal petition No. 137 of 1980 and Tulsiram also preferred another petition No. 238 of 1980. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. 3. Aggrieved by this order, Shyamkishan has preferred criminal petition No. 137 of 1980 and Tulsiram also preferred another petition No. 238 of 1980. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully. 3. From perusal of the written agreement dated April 28, 1979 it appears, prima facie that the truck was sold to Shyamkishan and given in his possession. No doubt, there is strong presumption that Tulsiram and Ramsukh the registered owners of the truck are is true owners. But this presumption is sufficiently rebutted by the written agreement and also number of witnesses, who have deposed about the theft and the possession of Sham-Kishan. Prima facie, therefore, the following facts are established- 1. Tulsiram and Ramsukh are the Registered owners of the truck No. R R.D. 3394. On 28-4-79, this truck was sold by Tulsiram to Shyamkishan and possession was also delivered to the latter. 2. That the truck was in possession of Shyamkishan and he was divested of the possession of the truck by theft committed by Tulsiram and others. The question is.in these facts, is when the truck should be normally given for interim custody. 4. There is a strong presumption of ownership and possession of in motor vehicle in favour of its registered owners and this is an important consideration for exercise of the discretion under section 451, Cr. P.C. 5. The exception of the said principles is that when it is disclosed by a good evidence that the complainant was in lawful possession of the truck and it has been removed from his possession by means of some offence then the truck may be given for interim custody to the complainant. However, the case will come under this exception only when there is very good evidence regarding the commission of the crime and the title and prior possession of the vehicles. I have gone through the case diary. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the. impugned order has not cared to, to carefully peruse the case diary. There is prima facie strong evidence that the truck has been sold to Shyamkishan and further it was taken away by force from his possession by means of theft committed by Tulsiram and others. I have already held in Kailashchandra v. Perasmal (S.B. Criminal Misc Petition No. 256 of 1980). There is prima facie strong evidence that the truck has been sold to Shyamkishan and further it was taken away by force from his possession by means of theft committed by Tulsiram and others. I have already held in Kailashchandra v. Perasmal (S.B. Criminal Misc Petition No. 256 of 1980). "I may say with respect that the said observations were made in the facts of the case. Each case would depend upon its own facts on various considerations as warranted by these facts.There can not be any inflexible rule that the vehicle should invariably to be returned to its registered owner. However, as stated earlier if no offence has been committed in respect of a property than the setting of criminal machinary of law by the complainant is nothing but gross abuse of the process of the court, . In such cases, the property is necessarily to be returned to one, who is entitled to its possession at the time of its recovery and who has not committed any offence in respect thereof to make its possession unlawful. This has been held by the Supreme Court is the case of N. Madhavan v. State of Kerala (1980) 1 SCJ 326. Conversely, the courts will not help one who for the satisfaction or vindication of real or imaginary rights takes the law in his own hands and obtains the possession of a property or a motor vehicle by some criminal Act. I am farther of the opinion that this principle has to be followed even in respect of a motor vehicle for the disposal of all applications under sections 451, 452 or 457, Cr.P.C. " Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind to the facts of the case and was unduly swayed by the fact that Ramsukh was one of the registered owners of the truck. No doubt, this was a relevant consideration and presumptive evidence of the title of Ramsukh and Tulsiram. However, prima facie.it stands rebutted by the execution of the aforesaid written agreement by Tulsiram in favour of Shyamkishan. Much can be said on both sides, the case of Ramsukh is that he was not a party to the alleged transfer of the truck. However, the remedy of Ramsukh in that event would be by way of civil action. However, prima facie.it stands rebutted by the execution of the aforesaid written agreement by Tulsiram in favour of Shyamkishan. Much can be said on both sides, the case of Ramsukh is that he was not a party to the alleged transfer of the truck. However, the remedy of Ramsukh in that event would be by way of civil action. Prima facie there is evidence about the sale of the truck to Shamkishan and its theft by Tulsiram and others. I am of the opinion that in the interest of justice in these facts, the interim custody of the truck should be directed in favour of Shyamkishan. 6. I, therefore, quash the impugned order dated August 19, 1980 and direct that the custody of the truck be given to Shyamkishan petitioner on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate with a stipulation that he will produce the truck before the court as and when required and on his failure to do so, the aforesaid sum shall be liable to be recovered from him or his surety or both. The petitions are decided accordingly.Order accordingly. *******