This petition is directed against the order dated 18. 2. 91 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup at Guwahati in G. R. Case No. 2447/90. By the said order the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate gave zimma of the seized vehicle No. AMA-6231 (No. DL-1G 1807) to Basudeo Agarwal, the registered owner of the vehicle on furnishing a bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the satisfaction of the Officer-in-charge of Bharalumukh Police Station. 2. The short facts as disclosed in the FIR and the impugned order are stated below ; Nanakchand Agarwal and Basudeo Agarwal were the owners of two trucks bearing registration No. AMA 7594 and AM\ 6231 and they agreed to sale the same to Rakesh Goyal at a sum of Rs. 30.000/-each. Rakesh Goyal paid Rs. 60,000/- for both the trucks and agreed to pay the balance within 3/4 months and the trucks were also handed over to him. Rakesh Goyal who has been shown as an accused in the present case, it is alleged that, did not pay the balance amount and on enquiry the informant came to know that the accused Rakesh Goyal registered the vehicle No. AMA 6231, which is the subject matter of the present dispute, in his name by forging some documents and the said registration was done in the State of Nagaland. The registration number of the vehicle was changed to NLM 8551 and later on Rakesh Goyal sold the vehicle to the present petitioner Gopiram who registered the vehicle in his own name at Delhi being registration No. DL-1G 1807. The informant has alleged that accused Rakesh Goyal without being owner of the vehicle sold it to the present petitioner Gopiram by forging the documents. During investigation, police seized the vehicle from the present petitioner at Delhi and it has been brought to Guwahati. Before the learned trial Court both Basudeo Agarwal and the present petitioner Gopiram have claimed for the zimma of the said vehicle on the basis of registration in their name. According to Gopiram he purchased the vehicle on 27. 8. 90 from Rakesh Goyal for valuable consideration as he found that Rakesh Goyal was the registered owner and thereafter got it transferred to his name. 3. This is the second times, the matter has come before this Court. In Criminal Revision No. 63/90 this Court by order dated 11. 2. According to Gopiram he purchased the vehicle on 27. 8. 90 from Rakesh Goyal for valuable consideration as he found that Rakesh Goyal was the registered owner and thereafter got it transferred to his name. 3. This is the second times, the matter has come before this Court. In Criminal Revision No. 63/90 this Court by order dated 11. 2. 91 directed the learned trial Court to dispose of the petition for zimma of the vehicle after giving opportunities to the parties. In deciding this matter the learned Court was directed to decide who was the best person entitled to possess the seized vehicle and if necessary to decide the ownership of the seized vehicle. 4. I have heard Mr. Sahewalla, learned counsel for the present petitioner and Mr. J. M. Choudhury for the opposite party i. e. Basudeo Agarwalla. 5. It may be stated that Rakesh Goyal also filed a petition before this Court for allowing him to intervene in the matter and his counsel Mr. K. K. Mahanta was also heard. 6. From the impugned order I find that the learned Court was of the opinion that the transfer of the vehicle and recording of name in the Registration Certificate of Rakesh Goyal was made in a suspicious condition and without obtaining any no-objection certificate from the District Tran­sport Officer, Guwahati as required under section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act and accordingly held that the petitioner also did not acquire valid title though he was a purchaser for valuable consideration from a registered owner. The main consideration for allowing the vehicle in the zimma of Basudeo Agarwal is that he was the registered owner of the vehicle. 7. Various points have been judge before this Court regarding the factual aspects of the matter and in my opinion it is not necessity to consider these points in view of the fact that I propose to send back the entire matter to the learned Court below. 8. There cannot be any dispute that normally registered owner is entitled to get custody of the vehicle. This principle of law is applicable in cases such as alleged theft etc. But if the title is disputed the said principle may not be applied and it will depend on the facts of ease. 9. 8. There cannot be any dispute that normally registered owner is entitled to get custody of the vehicle. This principle of law is applicable in cases such as alleged theft etc. But if the title is disputed the said principle may not be applied and it will depend on the facts of ease. 9. I may state here that in Jakkarsaheb vs. State of Karnataka, 1978 Cri LJ NOC 94, the order of the Magistrate giving interim custody to the com­plainant by taking proper security was upheld In that case, the allegation was that accused forcibly took away the vehicle and refused to return the same. 10. It may be stated that passing an order for custody of any movable property under section 4^1 CrPC is only a temporary arrangement and it continues till the end of the trial. Giving such custody is to protect and preserve the property during investigation and trial. Such custody to a person is in fact custody of the vehicle by the person on behalf of the Court. It may, however, be noted that while passing the interim order of custody, Court has to act in a judicial manner though the power is discretionary. In selecting the person for giving such custody, Court has to act very carefully as if the custody is given to a wrong person he may cause damage to the property. 11. In V. Parakashan vs. K P Pankajaksham,1985 Cri LJ 951, a similar question came up for consideration before the learned Single Judge and after considering the relevant provision of t e Motor Vehicles Act, the Court observed that different formalities are prescribed for affecting transfer of different items. But whether the procedural formalities are observed or not, the real question is whether ownership and, if necessary, possession were transfer red. If the answer is affirmative there is a passing of beneficial interest. The Court held that transfer of a motor vehicle is no exception to it and it is a movable property and the transfer is governed by the provisions of Sale of Goods Act and not under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. If the answer is affirmative there is a passing of beneficial interest. The Court held that transfer of a motor vehicle is no exception to it and it is a movable property and the transfer is governed by the provisions of Sale of Goods Act and not under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court further held that even for a motor vehicle it is not the registration certificate that confers title and the registration certificate is not the documents of title and does not have a better position than a patta in records in relation to landed property. 12. In Sat Singh vs. State of Punjab & others, 1987 Cri LJ 133, the possession of a truck had been delivered to a person by the owner in pursuance of an agreement of sale after receiving bulk of the sale price. But in the registration certificate, the name of the purchaser was not recorded. The Court held that in such a case the trial Court has to determine as to who was the proper person to whom the custody of the truck should be given. And in view of the facts of that case and taking note of the fact that delivery of possession of the truck was given in pursuance of the agreement for sale, it was held that the purchaser in equity is entitled to retain possession of the vehicle and that it is no' absolutely essential that the vehicle must be given in custody only to the person in whose name it stands registered. 13. Single Bench of this Court m Criminal Revision No, 400 of 1990 [1991 (1) GLJ 120] held that certificate of registration is not the document of title in relation to a motor vehicle unlike the registered deed of sale of immovable property. This Court further held that transfer of ownership of vehicle is governed by the Sale of Goods Act and not under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. I am in respectful agreement with the law laid down by the Kerala High Court which was also followed by this Court in the above Criminal Revision. Accordingly I hold that the learned trial Court ought to have considered prima facie the question of title keeping in view the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and also the peculiar facts of this case. Accordingly I hold that the learned trial Court ought to have considered prima facie the question of title keeping in view the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act and also the peculiar facts of this case. I find from the impugned order that the learned trial Court also did not at all consider the registration certificate issued by the State Transport Authority of Delhi in the name of the present petitioner, Gopiram. The learned trial Court also did not consider the case of Rakesh Goyal that the agreed price of the truck was Rs. 30,000/- which was duly paid and thereafter Rakesh Goyal incurred expenditure for making the truck fit for use. I may add that in the present petition by Rakesh Goyal copies of receipt for Rs. 30,000/- given by the registered owner, letter to the registering authority by the original owner and copies of the bill for repairing of the vehicle have been annexed. While deciding, these facts shall also be taken into consideration by the learned trial Court. I may also state that in the copy of the First Information Report to the Police annexed to the present petition and also in the impugned order it has been stated that price fixed was Rs. 20,000/- for each vehicle and the amount was duly paid. Nowhere, it has been disclosed as alleged now that price fixed for the truck was much more than Rs. 30,000/-. From what has been stated above, I set aside the impugned order and directed the learned trial Court to decide the matter 0:1 the basis of the law stated above. This shall be done immediately and preferably within a period of 1 (one) month from the receipt of this order. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Court on 10th of April for obtaining necessary orders. Office to send a copy of this order immediately.