JUDGMENT 1. - The present revision petition has been preferred under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 7.3.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1 Pali whereby he had set aside the order passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate District Pali. 2. Before this Court take note of brief facts it will be necessary to notice the following question raised by the counsel for the petitioner. 3. Whether petitioner being a purchaser of the vehicle from whose possession vehicle has been recovered is entitled to supurdagari/jimmedari of the vehicle which is a case properly of a case in which petitioner is being tried as a accused for wrongfully possessing the vehicle? 4. Briefly stated Turbo Truck Bearing No. RJ-22-G-2782, as per registration certificate is owned by respondent No. 2. The petitioner claim that vide agreement to sell, vehicle has been purchased by him, since the vehicle was financed therefore, vehicle being hypothecated could not be transferred in the name of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner on the strength of agreement to sell had paid all installments to the Bank which had financed the vehicle. It is further submitted that petitioner has also paid premium to the Insurance Company. 5. Respondent No. 2 being complainant has disputed validity of agreement to sell and the receipts produced by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after registration of F.I.R. for an offence under Section 384 I.P.C., i.e., snatching of the vehicle, complainant respondent No. 2 had also lodged a F.I.R. for creation of false and fabricated document i.e. agreement to sell etc. for offences punishable under Section 468/471 I.P.C. Counsel for the petitioner submits that so far fabrication and forgery of document is concerned, a cancellation report has been submitted. 6. Be as it may, as per conclusion and opinion of the Investigating Agency petitioner has snatched the vehicle, of which respondent No. 2 is a registered owner. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the vehicle was recovered from his possession and agreement to sell is in his favour, considering the fact that petitioner has paid all installments of the vehicle, it should be released to him on supurdginama during the trial of the case. 8. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the vehicle was recovered from his possession and agreement to sell is in his favour, considering the fact that petitioner has paid all installments of the vehicle, it should be released to him on supurdginama during the trial of the case. 8. Counsel for the petitioner to fortify his submissions has relied upon Tulsi Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 1995 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 433 , Niraj Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1999(2) WLC 292 (Raj.) and Mohan Lal Saini v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2001(2) R.Cr.D. 285 (Raj.) , to contend that over and above a registered owner the vehicle can be released to the person from whose possession it was recovered. 9. Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 has countered the arguments raised by the petitioner on the ground that benefit cannot be granted to a person, who as per Investigating Agency has committed the offence. 10. There is no quarrel with the proposition canvassed by counsel for the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the vehicle can be released to the person from whose possession it has been recovered. At the same time due credence ought to be granted on the opinion of the Investigating Agency. A person who has committed the theft of vehicle cannot say that since vehicle has been recovered from his possession he has better claim over the registered owner. 11. Authenticity of the documents relied by the petitioner is yet in doubt. This Court has no doubt that in case during the trial, the Court comes to a conclusion that documents relied upon by the petitioner are genuine, the Court, at the conclusion of trial, can release the vehicle in favour of the petitioner but so far interim relief during the course of trial is concerned, opinion of the Investigating Agency and the fact that respondent No. 2 is a registered owner are to be given due importance. Furthermore, if the claim of the petitioner and genuineness of the documents is upheld by the Court, the petitioner can be compensated by the Court by awarding mesne profits by way of cost. Furthermore, if the claim of the petitioner and genuineness of the documents is upheld by the Court, the petitioner can be compensated by the Court by awarding mesne profits by way of cost. However, at present balance of convenience is in favour of the registered owner because Investigating Agency after gathering evidence has opined the petitioner is an accused of an offence under Section 384 Cr.P.C. 12. Consequently, this Court at this juncture shall refrain to cause interference. 13. However, conclusion of the trial at the earliest will settle the claim and counter claim regarding the ownership of the vehicle, therefore, considering the fact that F.I.R. was lodged in the year 2009, a direction is issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months and also to finally determine who is entitled to the release of the vehicle which is a case property.Revision dismissed. *******