Introduction:
In Krishnan Narayana v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others [2026 LiveLaw (SC) 724], the Supreme Court clarified that a vehicle’s registration certificate is not the sole determining factor while deciding applications for interim custody under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih held that registration is only one relevant circumstance and does not conclusively establish entitlement to interim possession of seized property.
The dispute arose from a business conflict between the appellant, a director of M/s Pure Minerals and majority shareholder of M/s Earth Stein Private Limited, and the respondent company. Several vehicles, including excavators, a tipper, and a pick-up truck, had been purchased in the name of the appellant’s company. The appellant alleged that the respondents unlawfully removed the vehicles from his factory. In response, the respondent company lodged a counter-complaint alleging that the appellant had misappropriated company funds exceeding ₹1.73 crore to purchase the vehicles in his own company’s name. Both sides sought interim custody of the seized vehicles, ultimately leading to the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties:
The appellant contended that the vehicles were legally registered in the name of M/s Pure Minerals and, therefore, interim custody should necessarily be granted to him. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat (2002), he argued that courts should ordinarily release seized vehicles to the registered owner so that they do not deteriorate while lying unused. According to him, questions regarding ownership or financial disputes could be decided separately during trial.
The respondents opposed the appeal, arguing that although the registration certificates stood in the appellant’s company’s name, the vehicles had actually been purchased using funds belonging to the respondent company. They submitted that the loan instalments for the vehicles were regularly paid from the respondent company’s account and that the appellant had executed an undertaking permitting the respondent company to continue using the vehicles until settlement of accounts. The respondents further pointed out that the vehicles were seized from their mining site where they had been in continuous commercial use, demonstrating their actual possession and beneficial control.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s decision granting interim custody of the vehicles to the respondent company.
The Court explained that Sections 451 and 457 CrPC empower criminal courts to make appropriate orders regarding interim custody of seized property. The purpose of these provisions is to preserve the property and prevent its deterioration during the pendency of criminal proceedings. While exercising this jurisdiction, courts are not required to determine final ownership or title. Instead, they are expected to make a prima facie assessment regarding who is best entitled to interim possession based on the surrounding circumstances.
Rejecting the appellant’s argument, the Court clarified that its earlier decision in Sunder Bhai Ambalal Desai does not create an absolute rule that interim custody must always follow the registration certificate. The judgment only emphasises the need for expeditious disposal of custody applications while ensuring that the property is properly preserved. Registration is an important piece of evidence but cannot override all other relevant facts.
The Bench observed that several circumstances favoured the respondent company. The vehicles were seized from the respondent’s operational site where they were actively being used for mining activities. The loan instalments had consistently been paid from the respondent company’s bank account. The appellant had also executed an undertaking allowing the respondent company to retain and operate the vehicles until financial accounts between the parties were settled. Although the appellant alleged that the undertaking was forged, the Court held that such disputed questions required independent adjudication and could not be conclusively examined in interim custody proceedings.
The Court further held that the appellant’s claim rested almost entirely on the registration certificates, whereas the respondents produced material showing actual possession, continued commercial use, financial contribution towards the purchase, and documentary evidence supporting their claim. These circumstances collectively outweighed the evidentiary value of the registration certificates for the limited purpose of deciding interim custody.
Reiterating the scope of Sections 451 and 457 CrPC, the Court observed that criminal courts are concerned only with temporary possession and not with adjudicating ownership rights, which remain within the jurisdiction of competent civil courts. The discretion under these provisions must be exercised by considering all surrounding facts instead of mechanically relying upon documentary title alone.
Finding no legal infirmity in the High Court’s approach, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed that interim custody of the vehicles should remain with the respondent company. The judgment reinforces that registration certificates, though relevant, are not conclusive and that courts must adopt a balanced and practical approach while deciding interim custody disputes involving seized property.