JUDGMENT B. Akbar Basha Khadiri, J. - This petition is to set aside the orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Namakkal, in C.M.P. No. 632 of 2000 on 7-3-2000 refusing to give interim custody of the Van bearing Registration No. TN 39A 6886. 2. This petition has arisen in this way: The petitioner is the owner of the vehicle in question. On 2-2-2000 while he was travelling in the van alongwith the driver the accused waylaid, kidnapped the petitioner and committed theft of the van regarding which a complaint was preferred before the first respondent who registered a case in Crime No. 161 of 2000. The case is pending investigation. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the vehicle the registration certificate stands in his name the accused abducted .him and forcibly obtained his signature in some blank court-fee stamp papers and blank stamp papers and also in the transfer form now the van is lying exposed to elements and it is deteriorating. According to the petitioner he being the owner the van should be returned to him. 3. It appears, the second respondent Kannan also made a claim to the van alleging that during the first week of January. 2000, the petitioner had sold the vehicle to him for a consideration of Rs. 3,00.000/- and received Rs. 2,50.000/- as advance and he had promised to receive the balance of Rs. 50,000/- in a short while. The petitioner had also delivered the vehicle to the second respondent. It was agreed that the balance amount was to be paid on or before 25-1-2000 and the petitioner should deliver the R.C. permit etc. The purchaser had entrusted the vehicle to one Jayapal who is at Thiruvarur. But the petitioner had not delivered the R.C. and permit but forcibly took away the van from Thiruvarur and he had also falsely given a complaint. The first respondent has falsely registered a case alleging that the van was seized near Kudavasal. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that because there are rival claimants interim custody cannot be granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner has come forward with the instant petition. 5. Heard both the sides. Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code os as under:- "451. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate held that because there are rival claimants interim custody cannot be granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner has come forward with the instant petition. 5. Heard both the sides. Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code os as under:- "451. Order for custody and disposal of property pending trial in certain cases - When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial and if the property is subject to speedy and natural decay or if it is otherwise expedient so to do the Court may after recording such evidence as it thinks necessary order it to be sold or otherwise disposed of. Explanation- For the purpose of this Section, "property includes.. (a) property of any kind of document which is produced before the Court or which is in its custody. (b) any property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence. 6. In Gopalaswamy, G.V. v. Nagarajan1, a single Judge of this Court has held that the order passed under Section 451 Cr. P.C. is only temporary in nature and would subsist only till the disposal of the main case itself. 7. In B. Lalithchand Nadar v. State And Other2, it has been held that order under Section 451 Cr. P.C. is only for a temporary arrangement to provide custody with a proper person as the Court thinks fit, even if such person is the owner of the property his possession or custody is only as representative of the Court and not in his independent right. 8. In P. Sekar (Accused) v. State by Inspector of Police3, a single Judge of this Court has held that in matters relating to motor vehicles interim custody generally has to be ordered in whose name the Registration Certificate stands and who can put the vehicle to the best use. 9. In the instant case. the, petitioner herein claims to be the de juare owner. He has produced the Registration Certificate. 9. In the instant case. the, petitioner herein claims to be the de juare owner. He has produced the Registration Certificate. On the other hand, the rival claimant has claimed that he has purchased the vehicle, and the possession was delivered to him but the petitioner refused to deliver the Registration Certificate. Emptio et vend ito contract between the petitioner and the rival claimant cannot be considered at this juncture, because the rights flowing from a contract if any between the petitioner and the second respondent had to be worked out in the forums meant for it namely the Civil Court. While, considering the interim custody the Criminal Court cannot go into the rights of the party and enforce the same. Prima facie, the Registration stands in the name of the petitioner. It appears the Registration Certificate was found in possession of the petitioner and the petitioner has produced the same into the Court on 15-2-2000. It is admitted that the vehicle, has been seized by the police and it is now lying exposed to elements and it would certainly deteriorate its condition and bring down the value. According to the petitioner, he has been running the vehicle as a tourist vehicle and eking out his livelihood. I consider that expediency requires return of the vehicle, to the petitioner herein. 10. In the result, this petition is allowed. Interim custody of the van bearing Registration No. TN 39 A 6886 is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner executes a bond for Rs. 3,00.000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Namakkal; (ii) The petitioner should not alienate or dispose of the vehicle; (iii) The petitioner should not change or alter the original position colour and shape of the vehicle; (iv) The petitioner should produce the vehicle as and when required; and (v) The vehicle should not be used for any illegal purpose. Revision allowed. 1. 1987 L.W. (CRL.) 487. 2. 1990 (2) MWN (CRL.) 23. 3. 1992-L.W. (CRL.) 47.