S.D.BAJAJ, J. - (1.) RED coloured Maruti car No. DBD 3420 was stolen at pistol point in broad day light from the factory of Daulat Ram at Mansa. A case under sections 382/506/148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against Nachhitar Singh, Kaka Singh, Surinder Singh and Gurcharan Singh in Police Station, Mansa, on 11th July, 1988 in this regard. In the course of investigation it came to light that Surjit Singh petitioner had forged certain documents and was on their basis claiming ownership of the cat as its purchaser from Leela Ram son of Ramji Das of 26/8 East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. Thereafter on 28th September, 1988 offences under sections 420/467/468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code were also added to the offences under sections 382, 506, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) IN Criminal Misc. No. 5809-M of 1988 my learned brother J.S. Sekhon, J., observed on 8th September, 1988, "especially when Mr. S.C. Sibal, learned counsel for the petitioner has given undertaking that the car is being produced and will be produced during the investigation of the case if the Investigator so requires." It is, however, most unfortunate that inspite of the undertaking aforesaid Surjit Singh petitioner took the car to the court compound at Bhatinda and obtained ex-parte Supardari in respect of it from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shri K.K. Kataria on 13th September, 1988 without any notice either to the Investigating Officer or A.P.P. Learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, reversed the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and ordered that instead of Surjit Singh the car should be released on Supardari to Leela Ram, its registered owner before the alleged sale in favour of Surjit Singh. Surjit Singh petitioner has come to this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 7603-M of 1988 for getting the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, set aside and that of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate restored. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to the observations made in Deo Dutta Sharma v. Manohar Lal and others, 1974(2) Chandigarh Law Reporter which read, "A reference in this connection may instructively be made to the mandatory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Chapter III therein provides for the registration of motor vehicles and sections 22 and 23 impose a mandatory duty on the owner of a motor vehicle to have the same registered by the Registering Authority in the State in which such owner has residence or place of business before the vehicle can be allowed to be driven in any public place. Section 24 lays down the procedure for getting the registration above-said and section 26 provides that the vehicle must be produced before the Registering Authority in order to satisfy itself that the particulars regarding the motor vehicle and the claim to ownership are true. It is thereafter that a certificate of registration in form 'G' shall be issued in favour of the owner of the motor vehicle. Any transfer of ownership thereafter of the motor vehicle is then provided for in section 31 of the Act. This enjoins that the transferor shall report within 14 days of the transfer of the motor vehicle to the Registering Authority about this fact and equally the transferee is under an obligatory duty to report the transfer in his favour within 30 days of its transfer. Further, it is provided that the transferee shall forward the certificate of registration to the Registering Authority in order that the particulars of the change of ownership should be entered in the certificate of registration. It is evident from these provisions that the certificate of registration is the primary, if not conclusive evidence, that the holder thereof is the owner of the motor vehicle specified therein. Equally axiomatic it is that a presumption of being in possession flows from the factum of rightful ownership. Therefore the holder of the certificate of registration is entitled to claim in his favour the strongest presumption that he is the rightful owner in physical possession (either actually or constructively) of the motor vehicle. Unless there is the clearest and well-nigh conclusive evidence to the contrary to rebut this presumption the registered owner of a motor vehicle ought not to be denied his right to custody and possession of the same " and urged that certificate of registration of car No. DED 3420 being in the name of the petitioner Surjit Singh, the car was rightly released on Supardari to him by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13th September, 1988, and therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhatinda, on 18th October, 1988 releasing the car aforesaid on Supardari to Leela Ram needs to be reversed and that of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 13th September, 1988 is to be restored.
(3.) THE argument advanced is wholly without merit. Offences under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code were added on 28th September, 1988, in regard to the Certificate relied upon by Surjit Singh petitioner. Since the truth or falsity of the allegations in this regard is yet to be gone into, it would be futile to make the allegedly forged registration certificate as the basis for releasing the car on Supardari. In result the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 13th September, 1988, cannot be restored. Criminal Misc. No. 7603-M of 1988 is thus wholly without merit and is consequently dismissed.;