JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner Jagtar has filed this application under sec. 482, Cr. P. C, against the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingnagar dated August 23, 1986 by which the truck in dispute has been ordered to be handed over jointly to non-petitioners Sajjan Singh and Harbans Singh on their submitting supurdginama in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- each along with two sureties. 2. The facts giving rise to thus application briefly stated, are that the truck No. RRC 9095 had been purchased by Jagtarsingh after taking loan from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation in the sum of Rs. 1,77,000/-on September 16,1985- Later, on August 16, 1986 he sent a report by registered post to the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar alleging that he had gone to attend a 'Sangat', of which one Roshanlal was 'Mukhiya', on July 20, 1986. Many other persons also attend the 'Sangat', In the evening Roshanlal asked him to carry passengers in his truck from the dera of Sangat near Raisinghnagar to Ganganagar. On this request, the petitioner agreed to carry the passengers to Ganganagar. The petitioner was asked to stay at the 'Dera' itself and his father-in-law 'accompanied the truck. It is further alleged that after the truck had left the 'Dera' in the night Roshanlal confined him in a room where Roshanlal & one Harbans Singh compelled him to agree to transfer the truck in their favour. On his refusal to do so, he was beaten & was further threatend to dire consequences. He further alleged in the report that on July 21, 1986, he was carried to Raisinghnagar and there, a stamp was purchased and he was taken to a person, who was alleged to be a Magistrate in the Sanganeri courts at Jaipur in Court No. 3, and was resident of 37, P.S. tehsil Raisinghnagar. There he was compelled to put his signatures on the stamp papers without the documents being read over to him. It is further alleged that than he was taken to a 'Vakil', before whom also, he was made to put his signature on various papers without those papers being read over or explained to him He was. then, carried to 26 P.S. and again confined into a room, from where he released on July 23, 1986. It is further alleged that than he was taken to a 'Vakil', before whom also, he was made to put his signature on various papers without those papers being read over or explained to him He was. then, carried to 26 P.S. and again confined into a room, from where he released on July 23, 1986. The case of the petitioner goes on further to the effect that on being released from 26 P.S., he came to Surat Singh, his driver, and narrated to him the whole story, whereupon Suratsingh asked him to wait and enquire about the truck. It is alleged that the petitioner remained busy in search of the truck and later came to know that the truck had been carried away by one Sajjansingh (son-in-law of Harbans Singh) to Bombay. On this, the aforesaid report was sent by him to the Police Station on August 6, 1986. The aforesaid report appears to have reached the Superintendent of Police on August 7, 1986 and the same was forwarded to the Police Station. Raisinghnagar where it reached on August 16, 1986. A case was registered and investigation started. During the course of investigation, the truck was recovered from the possession of Sajjansingh at Ganganagar. Thereupon, Jagtarsingh on the one hand and Harbans Singh and Sajjansingh on the other, moved application for the custody of the truck. The case put forwarded by the present petitioner has already been stated above. The case of Harbans Singh and Sajjansingh on the other hand, appears to be that after Jagtarsingh had purchased the truck, he required more finance to run the business and thereupon he took one Prem Kumar as partner in half/half share and Prem Kumar invested a sum of Rs. 38,000/-. Later, Prem Kumar sold away his half share in the truck to Sajjansingh and thus, Sajjansingh acquired half share in the truck. So far as Jagtarsingh is concerned with regard to the half share in the truck, he sold the same to Harbans Singh. It is stated that the story put forward by Jagtarsingh that he had been confined and compelled to execute a sale-deed or agreement to in favour of Harbans Singh, was concocted one and as a matter of fact, he had executed the document with free consent. It is stated that the story put forward by Jagtarsingh that he had been confined and compelled to execute a sale-deed or agreement to in favour of Harbans Singh, was concocted one and as a matter of fact, he had executed the document with free consent. Harbans Singh and Sajjansingh filed the documents-agreement to sell, photostat copy of the agreement entered into between Prem Kumar and Sajjansingh and the affidavits of Jagtarsingh and Sajjan Singh etc. After hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate found that Harbans Singh and Sajjan Singh were entitled to the possession of the truck and, therefore, he ordered the truck to be handed over to them, as aforesaid. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioner Jagtar Singh has come up before this court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant documents. 4. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the truck and he is in possession of its registration. The petitioner never executed any sale-deed or agreement to sell in favour of Harbans Singh or any other person. In these circumstances, he was the person entitled to the custody of the truck and the learned Magistrate was entirely wrong in handling over the possession of the truck to Harbans Singh and Sajjan Singh. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on U. Kariyappa v. P. Srekantaiah, 1980 Cr. L.J. 422 , S.N. Murthy v. State of Mysore, 1974 Cr. L.J. 210 and Ishranath v. State of Rajasthan, 1984 R.L.W, 370 . on the other hand learned counsel for the non-petitioners Harbans Singh and Sajjan Singh as also the learned Public Prosecutor supported the order of the learned Magistrate. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions and I am of opinion that the order passed by the learned Magistrate does call for any interference except to certain extent. which, shall presently point out. No doubt, petitioner Jagtar Singh was the owner of the truck and the registration stood in his name, but at the same time, the fact that the petitioner had executed an agreement to sell in favour of Harbans Singh etc. cannot be lost sight of. The petitioner also does not deny the execution of those documents as such. No doubt, petitioner Jagtar Singh was the owner of the truck and the registration stood in his name, but at the same time, the fact that the petitioner had executed an agreement to sell in favour of Harbans Singh etc. cannot be lost sight of. The petitioner also does not deny the execution of those documents as such. What he alleges is that he had been wrongfully confined and had been compelled to put his signatures on the relevant documents regarding the agreement to sell by torturing him. This aspect of the matter is a matter yet to be proved and I am informed by the learned Public Prosecutor that after investigation, the police had already filed Final Report the effect that the story put forward by the petitioner about coercion and there at for the execution of the document is false and concocted. Further, it also appears that the truck had been in possession of Harbans Singh and right from July 20, 1986, the petitioner did not take any steps for the recovery of the truck nor made any report to the Police till August 6, 1986 and there is no reasonable explanation for this inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner and this conduct of the petitioner further gives rise to a presumption against his case. Further, the agreement which is alleged to have been got executed from the petitioner under threat or coercion also clearly refers to the fact that the petitioner had earlier entered into a partnership with one Prem Kumar in the truck in question and Prem Kumar had been given half share, who had invested Rs. 38, 00/- Had this not been a fact, in all probability, it would not have found mention in the agreement said to have been got executed from the petitioner, as stated above The matter does not rest here. The said agreement was got executed by the petitioner before a person who was alleged to be a Magistrate and some other documents were got executed from him in the presence of a 'Vakil'. If the petitioner had been under any such threat or coercion, he could have complained about it to those person at the time of execution of the documents, but his keeping silence at that stage before the Magistrate and the 'Vakil' also gives rise to a presumption against him. If the petitioner had been under any such threat or coercion, he could have complained about it to those person at the time of execution of the documents, but his keeping silence at that stage before the Magistrate and the 'Vakil' also gives rise to a presumption against him. In these circumstances, at present there is no material on record to come to the conclusion even, prima facie, that the said agreement was a result of threat or coercion. That being so. the conclusion is inevitable that the petitioner had himself parted with the possession of the truck in favour of Harbans Singh and when the truck was recovered from the possession of Harbans Singh, who also admits the share of Sajjan Singh, the learned Magistrate was perfectly justified in handing over the truck jointly to these two persons. The learned Magistrate, of course, filed to safeguard the interest of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation with whom the truck is admittedly mortgaged. It also appears that in the agreement to sell in favour of Harbans Singh, there was a condition that the purchaser shall be responsible for the payment of the instalments under the mortgage. Learned counsel for the non-petitioners also admits the liability of the non-petitioners towards such mortgage with the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. Therefore, the 'Supurdginame', which has been asked for from the non-petitioners, must have also the condition that the non-petitioners shall be responsible for the unpaid instalments to the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, To this effect, the order requires modification. 5. So far as the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are concerned, I am clearly of the opinion that they are not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. In such proceedings, what is relevant is to find out who is the person best entitled to the possession of the property. The title need not be enquired into. In the authorise relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners also, emphasis has, of course, been laid on the point of possession, but in arriving at the finding about the possession, the registration of the motor vehicles had been given, due weight. The title need not be enquired into. In the authorise relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners also, emphasis has, of course, been laid on the point of possession, but in arriving at the finding about the possession, the registration of the motor vehicles had been given, due weight. Here, as already stated above, the registration of the truck may be in the name of the petitioner, but when he has already transferred the ownership and possession as stated above, the mere fact that the registration may still continue in his favour, would not entitle him to the possession of the truck. 6. In S.N. Murthy's case. Hon'ble C. Honniah, J.. as he then was, had also observed that the power of the Magistrate to order custody of the property under sec, 561-A does not extent the determination of ownership of the property and that it is strictly within the sphere of the Civil Court. It was further observed that in order to find out the true claimant of the property such as motor vehicle, the Magistrate having regard to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act ought to have allowed the custody of such vehicle to the person in whose name certificate of registration stands until any transfer of ownership is recorded in it. However, this latter part of the observation has not been accepted by our court in number of cases and it has been held that even if the registration stands in the name of the original owner, the transfer of the vehicle is complete by delivery of the vehicle after sale. 7. In U. Kariyappas case , the vehicles was ordered to be handed over to the registered owner despite the fact that the person in possession claimed to have entered into an agreement to sell because the document was found to be doubtful and no steps had been taken by the opposite party for informing the registering authority for the change of registration. So also in Isharnath's case the alleged sale-deed was found to be doubtful. It was a typed document and did not contain the sale price for which the truck in question had been alleged to have been sold. So also in Isharnath's case the alleged sale-deed was found to be doubtful. It was a typed document and did not contain the sale price for which the truck in question had been alleged to have been sold. In the present case, as already stated above, it is the petitioners own case that the document regarding the sale of the vehicle in question had been executed by him although in circumstances stated above which prima facie have not been proved and the police has already filed the Final Report. 8. In these circumstances, in my opinion, except for the modification as stated above, the order passed by the learned Magistrate does not call for any interference. 9. The application under Section 482, Cr. P.C, is dismissed with the above modification in the order.Application dismissed with modification. *******