JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against. the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 24th May, 1994 by which the application submitted by the petitioner was rejected and the possession of the truck No. RNE 1341 was given to the respondent. 2. The facts of the case are that the original owner of the vehicle was Maliram and Prahlad who have sold the said truck on 9th August, 1992 to Sheojiram for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Sheojiram has made a payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the owner and the balance amount was to be paid in instalments. The amount of instalment could not be paid and ultimately the truck was seized in February, 1993, and it is alleged that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- has already been paid to Maliramat that time by the order of the Court. 3. The petitioner has come out with X case that an agreement was entered into for sale of the said truck on 18th December, 1992 for consideration of Rs. 1,70,000/-. According to the said agreement the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to Sheojiram and it is further mentioned in the agreement that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- would be paid when the registration is effected in the name of Tulsi Ram. A period of two months was mentioned in the agreement for handing over the possession. It is also mentioned that the vehicle was not registered in the name of Sheojiram at the time when the agreement was,entered into. 4. The petitioner filed a complaint on 4th June 1994 under Section 392 IPC that Sheojiram had sold the said truck for a sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- and had received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the possession of the truck was also given. On 25th May, 1993 when the driver Babu and kha Iasi Arjun were taking trial of the truck, Shivjilal and Shanker Lal forcibly snatched the said truck. On complaint, the directions were given u /Sec. 156(3) and the truck was seized on 28.6.93. The statement of witnesses were also recorded. Before the Trial Court it was the case of Sheojilal that the signatures have been obtained on blank stamp paper by fraud, and no agreement was entered into and that he has received only Rs. 25,000/- and not Rs. 1,50,000/-. 5. The statement of witnesses were also recorded. Before the Trial Court it was the case of Sheojilal that the signatures have been obtained on blank stamp paper by fraud, and no agreement was entered into and that he has received only Rs. 25,000/- and not Rs. 1,50,000/-. 5. The Trial Court after going through the evidence and the receipts regarding purchase of die sal, octroi, royalty came to the conclusion that the truck was taken by Sheojilal from the possession of driver. It was, therefore, directed on 20.8.93 that the said truck be released to the petitioner on furnishing a surety of Rs. 3,00,000/-. 6. Against the said order, a revision was preferred and the Sessions Judge found that the Trial Court has not examined the issue as to in whose name the truck is registered and that since the truck is not registered in the name of the petitioner, he cannot drive it. The amount of payment mentioned in the agreement was also considered as the disputed one. It was also observed that it has also not been found as to whether the truck has been registered in the name of Sheojiram. The revision was accepted on 7.10.1993 and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for passing the order afresh. 7. The Trial Court thereafter passed the impugned order dated 24.5.94 and the possession was handed over to Sheojiram. 8. The submission of Mr. Dalip Singh is that in accordance with the provisions of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act r/w Section 2(30) of the said Act it is only the registered owner who can drive the vehicle and since the vehicle is not in the name of the petitioner, he cannot drive it. It is also submitted that the Trial Court has committed no illegality because the custody has been given to the person from whose possession it was taken and this is the requirement and compliance of law. It is further submitted that the provisions of section 482 Cr. P.C. cannot be invoked because there is no abuse of process of law. 9. On 22.12.94, when this matter was argued by the learned Counsel for both the parties, it was stated that the alleged agreement is not having the signatures of the respondent Sheojilal. Learned Counsel for the respondent was directed to file an affidavit before 4.1.95. P.C. cannot be invoked because there is no abuse of process of law. 9. On 22.12.94, when this matter was argued by the learned Counsel for both the parties, it was stated that the alleged agreement is not having the signatures of the respondent Sheojilal. Learned Counsel for the respondent was directed to file an affidavit before 4.1.95. The said affidavit has not been filed and it is stated now by the learned Counsel for the respondents that Article 20 of the Constitution protects the right of an accused in not filing the affidavit and he cannot be compelled to give the affidavit as to whether the signatures on the agreement are his or not. At this stage, I need not go on this point because when the matter was for the first time tried by the Trial Court it was alleged by the respondents that the signatures have been obtained by fraud on a blank stamp paper and, therefore, the plea which was taken in this Court on 22.12.94 was contrary to the stand taken before the Trial Court. A sum of Rs. 25,000/- was admitted to have received instead of Rs. 1,50,000/- but why that amount was received has not been clarified here. The trial in respect of FIR filed by the petitioner is still undergoing and, therefore, no observation at this stage can be given. For the purpose of giving possession, the article normally has to be delivered to the person from whose possession it has been taken. The seizure of the truck was made on 28.6.93 from the possession of Sheojilal. The case of the petitioner is that Sheojilal has taken the forcible possession and stolen the vehicle on 25.5.93 from the possession of the driver of the petitioner. It appears that Sheojilal has become the registered owner of the vehicle on 29.5.94. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that signatures on the alleged agreement were obtained by fraud is yet to be examined by the Trial Court, but this is certain that no FIR or complaint to that effect was filed by the respondent that the petitioner has obtained signatures on blank stamp paper by fraud. The stand which has been taken also appears to be contradictory. The stand which has been taken also appears to be contradictory. At the time when the vehicle was agreed to be sold even Sheojilal was not the registered owner of it and the property can be sold by a person on the basis of the agreement which he has entered into with some other person. In respect of movable property title can be passed by giving the delivery and registration may take place subsequently. The various facts are required to be taken into consideration and the directions given by the Sessions Judge in its order dated 7.10.93 have not been fully taken note of. Simply because the petitioner is not a registered owner, it cannot be said that he has no right, title or interest on the basis of an agreement. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act puts an obstacle on driving the vehicle and not in giving possession. Even if the possession, could not have been given to the petitioner, it was proper for the Court to make further investigation and to pass the order maintaining the status quo or the Court could have directed that till the inquiry and investigation is completed, the vehicle shall remain in the custody of the Court. The allegation which the petitioner has levelled in complaint may or may not be found correct, but even the evidence and statement of witnesses of the petitioner namely Babulal, Kalyan Sahai, Ram Lal have altogether been ignored without any reason. In the first order passed by the Trial Court, the possession was given to the petitioner and when the matter was sent back by the Sessions Judge, it was observed by the Trial Court that the agreement which has been executed for sale of vehicle appears to be doubtful and for that purpose, the statements of stamp vendor and Notary Public were taken into consideration. The Trial Court should have taken into consideration the totality of circumstances and it may be possible that the Stamp Vendor and the Notary Public may not identify the particular person but that does not perse affect the validity of agreement. The circumstance that Tulsi Ram was required to make the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to original seller and that Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid by the petitioner was also not taken into consideration. The circumstance that Tulsi Ram was required to make the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- to original seller and that Rs. 1,00,000/- has been paid by the petitioner was also not taken into consideration. The various statements which have been given by different witnesses on behalf of the petitioner were not properly considered and, therefore, I consider that this one is a proper case where power u/section 482 Cr. P.C. should be exercised as the order passed has not secured the ends of justice. The Trial Court would now pass a fresh order by taking into consideration the entire evidence which is available on record and would ignore the view that if the vehicle is not registered in the name of the petitioner the delivery cannot be given. The law has not contemplated that the delivery can be given only to the registered owner of the vehicle. As observed above, the agreement for sale could be entered into and the sale would be complete by giving delivery in respect of movable property but the registration is an act which can subsequently be done by the purchaser. 10. The Misc. Petition is allowed with the above observations and if it is found that there is a prima facie case made out that the agreement for sale of vehicle was executed by Tulsi Ram in favour of the petitioner, the Court would consider handing over the possession to the petitioner. AUGUST8 Petition allowed. *******