JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in connection with family business the applicant had gone to purchase a Jeep from Kanpur 5-12-89 at 8.30 p.m. one second hand of 1984 Mahendra Jeep Model 1984, Chesis No. DG 278'6 with Registration No. UHJ 1101 was purchased from one Om Prakash Bhatia resident of 117-A, Udyog Nagar, Kanpur and delivery was obtained at 8.30 p.m. on 5-12-89 itself. The owner Shri Om Prakash had transferred the jeep under a written letter signed by him and a receipt of Rs. 62,000/- towards the price of the jeep was also duly executed by Shri Om Prakash Bhatia. Simultaneously Shri Bhatia informed the registering Authority in Transport Department under From No. 29 that he had sold his jeep to Shyam Prakash Agarwal, the petitioner. Shri Bhatia also requested the Registering Authority by filling Form No 30 to transfer the vehicle in the name of transferee Shyam Prakash Agrawal. Thereafter the jeep was brought to Jaipur and the same borrowed by Shri Krishna Kumar Singh who was known to the petitioner for the last many years. This Krishna Kumar Singh belongs to Kanpur (U P.). In fact he had suggested the applicant to purchase the jeep from Kanpur. The jeep remained in the custody of applicant till 9-1-90. On 9-1-90 Shri Krishna Kumar Singh borrowed this jeep under some pretext. He told the applicant that his relatives had come from his village and the jeep was needed for transportation purposes for a few days. The applicant relying on the version of Krishna Kumar Singh, handed over the jeep to him. When after a many days the jeep was not returned, the applicant approached Krishna Kumar Singh and demanded the return of the jeep. Krishna Kumar Singh on 3-2-90 went to Kanpur. The applicant waited for his return but when Krishna Kumar Singh did not return after 2-3 days, applicant himself went to Kanpur and contacted Krishna Kumar Singh who tried to evade the return of the jeep. The applicant then become more suspicious and went to the office of the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur. On inquiry he came to know that some fictitious transfer has been got entered in the Transport Department. The applicant then become more suspicious and went to the office of the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur. On inquiry he came to know that some fictitious transfer has been got entered in the Transport Department. Somebody had impersonated on behalf of the applicant and the jeep was first transferred fictitiously in the name of Shyam Lal S/o Kishanlal resident of village Nigoha Khobeypur, Kanpur Rural and thereafter it was re-transferred in the name of Prabhvesh Singh, non-petitioner No. 2. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that in view of the aforesaid contentions it is abundantly clear that all these transfers were bogus and fictitious and the same were done dishonestly to cheat and defraud the applicant from the custody of the jeep which was dully purchased by the applicant. Thereafter, the applicant came to Jaipur and lodged a First Information Report at Police Station Vidbayak Puri, Jaipur. 3. The case of the non petitioner is that the jeep in question was purchased by the applicant from Mr. Bhatia and thereafter the applicant sold the jeep in question to non-petitioner No. 2 and he executed a sale-letter in his favour. He further submits that at present registration of the jeep in question is in favour of non-petitioner No. 2 and that the jeep has been recovered from the possession of non-petitioner No. 2. He therefore, submits that non-petitioner No. 2 is the person entitled for the recovery of the jeep. 4. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner failed to show any document which could show that the jeep in question was sold to his client by the applicant. He merely submits that because the registration exists in the name of non-petitioner No. 2, so the jeep in question should be delivered to his client. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his submissions referred the case of V. Parakashan v. K.P. Pankajkashan & Another, 1985 Cr.L.J. 951 . In this case it has been observed as under:- "S. 451 enables the Magistrate to provide for interim custody of property pending conclusion of enquiry or trial. It is only a temporary arrangement and what is contemplated is only an interim provision to provide custody with a proper person as the Court thinks fit with liability to produce the property back as and when directed by the Court. It is only a temporary arrangement and what is contemplated is only an interim provision to provide custody with a proper person as the Court thinks fit with liability to produce the property back as and when directed by the Court. The maximum duration of the arrangement is only till conclusion of the enquiry or trial. It follows that the arrangement is only temporary and the main object is to protector preserve the property pending trial. Even if the person entrusted with interim custody is the owner his possession or custody during the period of entrustment is only as representative of the Court and not in his independent right. Further, the arrangement once made under S. 451 is not even final till the conclusion of the inquiry or trial. The court is having the right to terminate the entrustment get back the property from him and entrust it to somebody else whom the court deems fit in appropriate cases even before the conclusion of the inquiry of trial. So much so, the person entrusted with the property may also be entitled to seek termination of the entrustment and surrender the property even before the conclusion of trial. Pending inquiry or trial more than one such arrangement could be made, the order is only of an interlocutory nature. Even in cases of rival claims for interim custody, the preference made to one person does not settle any right to ownership or possession. Irrespective of defeat in a contest for interim custody, the defeated party can successfully enforce his claim for custody if ultimately he comes out with flying colours. The ultimate consideration is only who is the proper person considered by the court for entrustment of the property. In doing so the court may have considerations like safety of the property, the possibility of getting it back without damage, etc. The power of the court under S. 451 as regards interim custody of the movable property is not arbitrary. Even though such power is discretionary it has to be exercised in a judicial manner. It is likely that there may be contest for getting interism custody. The person entitled to ownership or possession may be interested in getting custody to himself m preference to the opponents due to various reasons. Even though such power is discretionary it has to be exercised in a judicial manner. It is likely that there may be contest for getting interism custody. The person entitled to ownership or possession may be interested in getting custody to himself m preference to the opponents due to various reasons. He may have the fear that at the hands of somebody else the property is liable to damage or misappropriation of the proceeds. Questions of prestige also may be there. For that reason itself there may be stiff opposition also. Custody to a wrong person may result in irreparable loss to the rightful claimant. Even though the power is discretionary, it is rather of a quasi civil nature. In the choice of the person to be entrusted with interim custody in such cases the court may have to take into consideration all the relevant aspects. 6. I agree with the proposition Laid down in this case that the ultimate consideration is only who is the proper considered by the Court for entrustment of the property. In doing so, the Court may have considerations like safety of the property, the possibility of getting it back without damage etc. and custody to illegal person may result in irreparable loss to the rightful claimant. 7. The learned counsel for the non-petitioner referred the case of Ishar Nath v. The State of Raj., RCC 1984 P.44 . 8. On 19-12-89, the applicant had moved the Transport Department, Jaipur that he had purchased the said jeep on 5-12-89 from Omprakas Bhatia, and after depositing the transfer fees the entry was made but because the registration paper was in turn condition, the transfer could not take place. In the meantime above mentioned Krishna Kumar Singh took away the jeep to Kanpur. The learned counsel further submits that the learned Magistrate no where observed that the jeep in question was purchased by the non-petitioner No.2 directly from Mr. Bhatia. It is not disputed that the real owner of the jeep in question was Mr. Bhatia and this fact is supported by an affidavit filed by Mr. Bhatia before the trial court. Even after that the learned subordinate Court passed as perverse order mentioning therein that the jeep in question shall not be delivered to either of the parties and the same shall remain in the custody of Police. Bhatia and this fact is supported by an affidavit filed by Mr. Bhatia before the trial court. Even after that the learned subordinate Court passed as perverse order mentioning therein that the jeep in question shall not be delivered to either of the parties and the same shall remain in the custody of Police. The learned counsel for the applicant therefore, submits that of the jeep continues to remain in police custody, the same shall be reduced to jung very soon and in such a situation there will be irreparable loss to the party entitled for the possession of jeep. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the best person entitled for keeping the jeep. 9. As stated earlier that the original owner of the jeep was Mr. Bhatia, who supports the version of the applicant. Non-petitioner No. 2 is not entitled for the custody of the jeep because no documents is there in his favour. On 5-12-89, Shri Bhatia had sold his jeep to Shyam Prakash Agrawal, applicant under Form No. 29. He had also requested the Registering Authority by filling Form No. 30 so transfer the vehicle in the name of transfer Shyam Prakash Agarwal. A receipt of Rs. 62,000/- towards the price of the jeep was also duly executed by Shri Omprakash Bhatia. From the above documentary evidence it prima facie case is not made out against the applicant. A look upon the impugned order shows that non-petitioner No. 2 is a total stranger for the jeep in question. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever sold the jeep to non-petitioner No.2. The alleged sale in the name of non-petitioner No. 2 appears to be false and fictitious. 10. A look on the impugned order shows that the order has been passed by the learned subordinate Court without considering relevant documents and after considering irrelevant facts. Moreover, if the impugned order is maintained then none of the party shall get any benefit and the jeep in question will be ruined. 11. Therefore, in such a situation the jeep should be delivered to the rightful claimant. For the reasons given above, this misc. Moreover, if the impugned order is maintained then none of the party shall get any benefit and the jeep in question will be ruined. 11. Therefore, in such a situation the jeep should be delivered to the rightful claimant. For the reasons given above, this misc. petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order dated 15-3-90 is set aside and it is directed that the jeep No. UHJ 1101 be handed over to the applicant Shyam Prakash Agrawal provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of one lack with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No.l3, Jaipur with the condition that the applicant shall produce the jeep as and when required by the court and shall not dispose of the same till the decision of the case and will maintain the same properly. It is further directed that the applicant shall deposit the tax and other fees regular with the concerned department.Petition Allowed. *******