JUDGMENT G.D. Kamat, J. - These three applications under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be conveniently disposed of by a single judgment as they involve identical facts and common questions of law and otherwise challenge the common order dated 23rd December, 1988 made by the J.M.F.C., Panaji deciding three applications under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. M/s. Eicher Motors Limited are the Manufacturers of light commercial vehicles known as Canter Mitsubishi having their factory at Pithampur in the District of Dhar, in Madhya Pradesh. M/s. Shiv and Shiva Earthmovers Pvt. Ltd. with its office at Panaji, Goa are the Authorised Representative of the aforementioned manufacturers on non-exclusive basis from the year 1985 within the State of Goa. One K.S. Rajashekar is the Managing Director of the said Authorised Representative. As Authorised Representative, M/s. Shiv Shiva used to book orders for the vehicles manufactured by M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. for short the Manufacturers, on certain terms and conditions. Proforma forms had to be filed while booking vehicles and the sales are effected ex-factory at Pithampur, M.P. so as to avoid local Sales Tax of the State of Goa. At the time of booking a sum of Rs. 25,000/- is to be paid and the balance amount later. Payments had to be made to the Manufacturers but all the transactions had to be through M/s. Shiv Shiva. The first respondent in each of the petitions are purchasers of Canter Mitsubishi vehicles and booked through Authorised Representative. Each admittedly paid Rs. 25,000/- the hands of K.S. Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva and which amounts were admittedly made over to the Manufacturers. However, subsequently the balance amount of the consideration nearly Rs. 1,97,000/- was also paid by each one of them. However, there is a small variation in the manner of payment. Whereas M/s. K.V.M. Products the first respondent in Cr. Misc. Application No 196/88 obtained a Bank Draft for the balance payment payable to M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd., in other two cases Mahadev Shaha Gaonkar and Mohammed Yusuf Nadaf, the 1st respondents therein made payments of balance to M/s. Shiv Shiva. Whereas M/s. K.V.M. Products the first respondent in Cr. Misc. Application No 196/88 obtained a Bank Draft for the balance payment payable to M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd., in other two cases Mahadev Shaha Gaonkar and Mohammed Yusuf Nadaf, the 1st respondents therein made payments of balance to M/s. Shiv Shiva. It is equally common ground that one vehicle in favour of aforementioned M/s. K.V.M. Products came to be registered in their name pursuant to the sale letter and transfer form signed by M/s. Shiv Shiva, whereas in the case of Mahadev Shaha Gaonkar and Mohammed Yusuf Nadaf the vehicles are transferred in their names in the R.T.O by one Nandkishore Volvoikar. This was done sometime in the first weak of November, 1988 and the vehicles were in their possession for quite sometime. 3. It appears as the allegations now stand from the Manufacturer that M/s. Shiv Shiva did not remit the sale proceeds for the balance amounts in respect of all the three vehicles in favour of the Manufacturers. On behalf of the Manufacturer an inquiry was made in Goa which revealed that the vehicles were not with M/s. Shiv Shiva. After lapse of some time the Manufacturer learnt that the vehicles were already transferred to and in the names of the buyers but however the sale proceeds were retained by M/s. Shiv Shiva and refusing to part with the same. The inquiry further revealed that the vehicles were transferred to and in the names of Mahadev Shaha Gaonkar and Mohammed Yusuf Nadaf by the sale letter and transfer form signed by Nandkishore Volvoikar in whose favour earlier M/s. Shiv Shiva had transferred. Seeing that no money was forthcoming a complaint was lodged to the officer-in-charge of the Panaji Police Station at Panaji on 8th December, 1988 alleging offences of criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust and cheating. Soon thereafter the Panaji Police seized the vehicles. Before anything more happened an application under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code was made on 9th Dec., 1988 by the Manufacturer to the J.M.F.C., Panaji, Goa. The Magistrate when directed the Police to submit their say the police however obliged the applicants by endorsing that there is no objection to release the vehicles as desired by the Manufacturer and accordingly the vehicles were released in favour of the Manufacturer on the executing a security bond for Rs. The Magistrate when directed the Police to submit their say the police however obliged the applicants by endorsing that there is no objection to release the vehicles as desired by the Manufacturer and accordingly the vehicles were released in favour of the Manufacturer on the executing a security bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with a further condition that they shall produce the vehicles before the Court as and when necessary. 4. It appears that Mahadev Shaha Gaonkar on 12th December, 1988 made an application to hand over his vehicle to him and on 12th Dec., 1988 the J.M.F.C. made an order directing the Police to hand over the vehicle to Mahadev Shaha Gaonkar. But however this order could not be complied with as the Police Officer brought to the notice of the Magistrate that pursuant to the order dated 9-12-1988 vehicles were already handed over to the said M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. Perhaps at the time this application was made by Mahadev he was ignorant that the vehicles were already directed to be given to the Manufacturer and taken over by them on 9-12-1988. 5. Each of the applicants thereafter moved an application that the vehicles seized be ordered to be handed over to each of them on such terms as the Court deems fit and proper. A notice of these applications was given to the Manufacturer and after hearing the purchasers of the vehicles and the Manufacturer the impugned order dated 23rd December, 1988 was made whereby vehicles were ordered to be withdrawn from the hands of the Manufacturer with a further direction that each of the purchasers shall be entitled to remain in possession thereof during the course of the trial ii further requiring them to furnish a security bond in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- each. 6. To make the narration complete it may be mentioned that no sooner the first order was made on 9th December, 1988 the Manufacturer took away the vehicles out of Goa and with that outside the jurisdiction of the court at their factory premises at Pithampur, M.P. An attempt was however made on behalf of the purchasers and they did succeed in obtaining an order for a direction to the Manufacturer to get the vehicles back to Goa within the jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate on or before 2nd January, 1989. The Manufacturer no doubt filed an application that they would require some time to get the vehicles back to Goa but however the fact remains that till today the vehicles are still lying at Pithampur. 7. A grievance on behalf of the respondents made in this connection is firstly on the ground that this direction of getting the vehicles back to Goa is never challenged in the present, petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and secondly that order has riot been complied with. Mr. Usgaoncar, learned Counsel for the Manufacturer, however, sought to extricate the Manufacturer by first bringing to my notice that the impugned order has been stayed by the then Vacation Judge on 31st December, 1988 with the result that the question of getting the vehicles within the jurisdiction does not arise. And secondly it is urged that if the Manufacturer succeeds in the present petitions an appropriate order can always be made by this Court in relation to the vehicles. He asserted that the question of challenging that direction does not arise as such direction is intricately connected with the order under challenge. 8. Shri M.S. Usgaoncar, counsel for the Applicants M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. in his major attack against the impugned order contends that prima facie criminal offences are disclosed against Shri K.S. Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva and Nandkishore Volvoikar and with that the complicity of each of the purchasers in the matter of transfer of the vehicles is such that they also become party conspirators. The argument is that having regard to the order form and other documents signed by the purchasers and regard being had to the terms and conditions thereof it was within the knowledge of the purchasers that the vehicles had to be transferred to their names by M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd and this being so, they could not have taken the title in the property from Nandkishore Volvoikar who had no connection whatsoever. In so far as the offences committed by Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva is concerned it is alleged that Mahadev Shaha Gaonkar and Mohammed Yusuf Nadaf, the two purchasers could not have paid the balance money to M/s. Shiv Shiva directly and the fact that money was not made payable to M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. is clearly suggestive of how the Authorised Representative, said Nandkishore Volvoikar and the purchasers involved themselves in criminal offences. It is indeed urged that at the time of placing orders proforma forms were signed by the prospective purchasers which clearly sets out terms and conditions on the reverse which require a buyer to pay the balance thereof by cross demand draft in favour of the Manufacturers payable at Indore with a further stipulation not to pay in cash to A.R. or by Bank Draft in favour of Authorised Representative. The Authorised Representative is bound to explain the terms and conditions to a buyer who is required to put his signature in token of acceptance of said terms and conditions. In one of the forms it is again mentioned that the buyer agrees and undertakes that in the event of nonpayment of the balance amount he will surrender the vehicle to the Manufacturer or the Manufacturer would be entitled to the possession of the vehicle for which the buyer will not take any objection. Mr. Usgaoncar feels fortified in the view taken by the fact that unconnected as he is, said Nandkishore said in his application for anticipatory bail that vehicles were transferred to his name for safe custody. 9. At the first flush the complaint filed by the Manufacturer appears to hold a lot of water and the intervention of the aforementioned Nandkishore Volvoikar does bring an element of grave suspicion but however a further disclosure of several facts along with several other documents and correspondence produced by Shri Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva does bring to the fore a dispute in relation to the accounts between them. 10. The question therefore that arises is on taking into consideration all these factors whether at all any interference is needed with the impugned order as it is undeniable that each of the buyers has finally paid the full price in respect of the vehicles and if on payment of the full price these buyers have taken over the vehicles can the Manufacturer be made to retain the vehicles merely because their mercantile agent M/s. Shiv Shiva is seeking to dupe them or who has a Court dispute in relation to the accounts. Mr. Usgaoncar would have been perhaps right if there had been an inkling in the matter that the buyers have otherwise taken some advantage of the situation but in fact it is not so as I will highlight the same a little later in the judgment. 11. Mr. Mr. Usgaoncar would have been perhaps right if there had been an inkling in the matter that the buyers have otherwise taken some advantage of the situation but in fact it is not so as I will highlight the same a little later in the judgment. 11. Mr. Usgaoncar would be once again otherwise right in contending that the so called order registration form which sets out terms and conditions no doubt says that the price indicated shall have to be paid by a cross demand draft in favour of M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd payable at Indore but however the expression in that very Clause 2(a) says: "Please do not pay any cash to Authorised Representative or by a bank draft in favour of A.R.". It is indeed true that the terms and conditions are required to be explained by the A.R and another proforma sets out an undertaking by the buyer that be will surrender the vehicle if payment is not made in full or that the Manufacturer will be entitled to take possession of the vehicle without any objection. In the first place that the payment in cash not to be made to A.R or the Bank Draft not in favour of A.R. sounds more a recommendation. Coming to the undertaking it is more in the nature of a civil liability that the buyer agreed to surrender the vehicle or entitling the Manufacturer to take possession thereof. It must not be forgotten that presently the parties are concerned with an order under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code at pre-trial stage. Mr. F. Rebello on behalf of Mahadev Shaha Gaonkar, Mr. S.G. Desai on behalf of Mohammed Yusuf Nadaf and Shri A.F. Diniz on behalf of K.V.M. Products have made several submissions and have also invoked certain provisions of the sale of Goods Act, 1930. According to them the ownership and title in the properties seized has already passed in favour of their respective clients namely the purchasers. 12. A separate observation at this stage in favour of M/s. K.V.M. Products in Criminal Misc. Application No 196/88 will have to be made as according to the learned Counsel there is not a single breach of the terms and conditions insofar as this party is concerned. 12. A separate observation at this stage in favour of M/s. K.V.M. Products in Criminal Misc. Application No 196/88 will have to be made as according to the learned Counsel there is not a single breach of the terms and conditions insofar as this party is concerned. The fact of the matter insofar as M/s. K.V.M. Products is concerned are that at the time of booking the vehicles, paid the advance of Rs. 25,000/- in the hands of M/s. Shiv Shiva which amount the Manufacturer admits to have received it is equally not disputed that the balance amount of nearly Rs. 2,00,000/- was again made by obtaining a Bank Draft payable to the Manufacturer duly banded over to M/s. Shiv Shiva. It is common ground that Rajashekar retained this draft with him but however signed the sale letter and got the vehicle registered in the name of K.V.M. Products. Mr. Usgaoncar does not dispute this position. The balance consideration amount insofar as this vehicle is concerned bas been retained by Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva but it was a Bank Draft obtained from Corporation Bank with its branch at Margao. It was valid for six months from the date of its issue and as on 25th April, 1989 is not negotiable. Going by the very case set out by the Manufacturer it is not possible to accept that retention of the draft or the amount on the draft payable to M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. can in any manner fasten any criminal liability insofar as M/s. K.V.M. Products are concerned. I am afraid that there can be any interference in the order made in favour of M/s. K.V.M. Products getting the vehicle in its possession until a final order is to be made by the Criminal Court or by the Civil Court if the parties resort to civil proceedings. 13. Coming back to the case of Mahadev Shaha Gaonkar and Mohammed Yusuf Nadaf it may be mentioned that here again they first paid an amount of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of booking the vehicles sometime in the last days of September, 1988 and it is equally common ground that the, balance amount of nearly Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by each of them to M/s. Shiv Shiv a before getting the delivery of the vehicles. 25,000/- at the time of booking the vehicles sometime in the last days of September, 1988 and it is equally common ground that the, balance amount of nearly Rs. 2,00,000/- was paid by each of them to M/s. Shiv Shiv a before getting the delivery of the vehicles. It may be again mentioned that insofar as Mahadev Shaha Gaonkar is concerned he has hypothecated the vehicle in favour of Corporation Bank with its branch at Molam, Goa. The payment was arranged through this Bank and this amount is to be repaid in instalments. Insofar as the vehicle of Mohammad Yusuf Nadaf is concerned the payment has come from the Maharashtra State Financial Corporation in whose favour the vehicle stands hypothecated and payment to be made in regular instalments. There is nothing to suggest that by getting the vehicles transferred to their names in the RTO in Goa they have otherwise taken advantage of any situation. Their only drawback being at the instance of M/s. Shiv Shiva vehicles were transferred to their names by signing the forms from the aforementioned Nandkishore Volvoikar. But then the blame hardly lies on their heads as they have merely acted on what Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva which Company admittedly was the mercantile agent so called of the Manufacturer arranged to do so As to how much and to what extent criminal liability can be fastened on them is a question of great doubt. I will boldly say so because of various documents put before this court by Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva. I was forced to permit him to me these documents, the reason being that Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva was never heard in the matter by the Court of the Magistrate. It may be worth mentioning that when the first order of 9th December, 1988 was made neither Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva nor the purchasers were heard and the order was made handing over the vehicles to the Manufacturer based on no objection given by the Police. When the applications on behalf of the purchasers were taken up for hearing the Manufacturer was heard and nowhere Rajashekar was in the picture. The present petitions under Section 482 are instituted in which K.S. Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva has been made a party. When the applications on behalf of the purchasers were taken up for hearing the Manufacturer was heard and nowhere Rajashekar was in the picture. The present petitions under Section 482 are instituted in which K.S. Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva has been made a party. The first of the question arose as to why the Manufacturer did not challenge the impugned order of 23rd December, 1988 in a revision application and why the petitioner had to resort to petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Perhaps the applicants wanted to focus the criminality of Rajashekar and therefore impleaded him in the present proceedings. Once the Manufacturer wanted to proceed with the petitions under Section 482. I am forced to allow Rajashekar to file his documents on record Perusal of the documents prima facie suggests that .there is a dispute in relation to the accounts between the parties namely Manufacturer on one side and the A.R. on the other. I am deliberately avoiding to make detailed reference to the documents so that no prejudice is caused in any proceeding. 14. Mr. Dias, counsel appearing for Rajashekar has completely owned the responsibility of Rajashekar in the matter and he contended that even if it is assumed that Rajashekar has involved himself in criminal offences according to him the bona fide innocent purchasers cannot be divested of their vehicles who have admittedly paid full amounts. He candidly accepted on behalf of M/s. Shiv Shiva that the entire payment has come in the hands of Rajashekar and what is more the payments have come from financial institutions which will come to troubles if vehicles are not released in favour of the buyers. In my view this argument of Mr. Dias is not less significant. It is from the income of running of the vehicles that the purchasers will be able to repay their debts to the institutions namely the Corporation Bank and Maharashtra State Financial Corporation and if these vehicles are kept idle with the Manufacturer it is these public financial institutions which may eventually lose the money. It is therefore paramount that these vehicles must be put to use by the purchasers to enable them to pay off the debts. Since the liability has been totally owned by Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva fail to see why I should interfere at this stage with the impugned order. It is therefore paramount that these vehicles must be put to use by the purchasers to enable them to pay off the debts. Since the liability has been totally owned by Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva fail to see why I should interfere at this stage with the impugned order. Admittedly M/s. Shiv Shiva were some sort of agent of the Manufacturer. Mr. Dias did try to say that in fact M/s. Shiv Shiva is a dealer unlike what is styled as an Authorised Representative based on some documents. but nevertheless his argument is and not without some merit that in any case M/s. Shiv Shiva must be held to be a commercial agent of the Manufacturers and when there is no evidence of any particular blame that can be levelled against the purchasers merely because as alleged by the petitioners that Rajashekar wanted to dupe them the vehicles should be retained by the Manufacturer. 15. A large number of authorities were cited before me to contend firstly that when a revision lies no application under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code is maintainable. Counsel for the respondents did urge that the impugned order not being a final order as final order can come only when the criminal proceedings ends no revision itself would lie. In my view I need not go into this controversy. It was equally urged by the counsel that the safe test in handing over the possession of the vehicles would be to a party in whose favour the vehicle stands in the records of the R.T.O Though there can be no dispute that ordinarily this principle is liable to be accepted in my view for the reasons disclosed I need not go into that. 16. I may observe and I can't ignore that the vehicles were despatched by the Manufacturer in the names of each of the purchasers from their factory at Pithampur, M.P. The sale was done as shown in the State of Madhya Pradesh and that is obviously with a view to avoid the payment of Sales Tax in the State of Goa. Before despatch of the cars temporary registration was obtained by the Manufacturer in the names of the purchasers at Pithampur. The temporary registration is no doubt always for a period of one month. Before despatch of the cars temporary registration was obtained by the Manufacturer in the names of the purchasers at Pithampur. The temporary registration is no doubt always for a period of one month. The vehicles were also insured because they had to travel a long distance from M.P. to Goa and the commercial insurance policy was obtained in the name of the purchasers. On the basis of all these facts and such documentation brought on record by Rajashekar it is not possible to ignore that the purchasers having paid full price the vehicles were so transferred. It was urged that the sale was complete and even post sales dues were recovered by the Manufacturer. All these factors in my view are not less significant in my decision in holding that the vehicles by given in possession of the purchasers namely Mahadev Shaha Gaonkar, Mohammed, Yusuf Nadaf and K.V.M. Products, the first respondents in all the three petitions. The learned P.P. supported the Manufacturer but then Shri Dias produced a copy of the opinion of the A.P.P. that Panjim Police are not even going to file any charge-sheet again the respondents on the grounds that the dispute partakes the character of civil nature. If this be so the vehicles have to come to the possession of the purchasers from whom they were seized by the Police. I, therefore confirm the orders of the Magistrate although for different reasons. Petitions are therefore liable to be rejected 17. The applicants are directed to hand over the vehicles to the buyers through the Court of the J.M.F.C., Panaji within 10 days from today who shall execute bonds as directed by the Magistrate. The Banking Draft which has been retained, by M/s. Shiv Shiva which is now a dead piece of paper cannot be negotiated at all. Mr. Rajashekar of M/s. Shiv Shiva cannot obviously appropriate the amount on this draft and he rightly did not take any steps in relation thereto and that was probably with a view not to involve himself in a criminal charge. I find no reason as to why K. V.M. Products should not obtain a fresh draft and pay directly to M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. in which event M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. would effect the necessary transfer of the vehicle in its favour in the R.T.O at Goa. I find no reason as to why K. V.M. Products should not obtain a fresh draft and pay directly to M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. in which event M/s. Eicher Motors Ltd. would effect the necessary transfer of the vehicle in its favour in the R.T.O at Goa. This order shall be subject however to any order that may be made by a competent Civil Court should any of the parties take recourse to such forum. No Civil Court to get influenced by any observations made in this judgment. 18. Petitions dismissed. Interim orders made on 31-12-1988 stand vacated in each of the petitions. Rule made in each of the petitions discharged.