Judgment :- 1. This is a revision petition by the respondent before the Sub Magistrate, Haripad, who passed the order dated 1712 69 directing the motor cycle K.L.T. 7464 to be handed over to the opposite party, who is the 1st respondent in this revision petition, on the basis that the 1st respondent claimed to be in possession of the motor cycle. 2. The motor cycle in question was seized by the police on 16-8-69 at 2 p. m. on the basis of a scene mahazar and in respect of which one Mohammed Kunju was prosecuted and convicted under S.279 and 337 I.P.C. for rash and negligent driving causing injury to a pedestrian and under S.3 of the Motor Vehicles Act being found to be in possession of the motor cycle in question without a valid licence. The incident was on 15 8 69. During the pendency of the trial, the motor cycle was entrusted to the 1st respondent and another person on their executing a kachit dated 28 10 69 undertaking by them to produce the motor cycle as and when they were called upon by the court to do so. After the accused was convicted, the direction as to the person to whom the motor cycle was to be handed over finally came up for consideration before the lower court under S.517 of the Cr. P. C. S.517 (1) of the Code runs as follows: "When an inquiry or trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as ft thinks fit for the disposal by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person, claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise of any property or document produced before it or in its custody or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence." 3. It is relevant in this regard to point out that the question as to the person from whom the property was seized by the police and about which the case was finally disposed of depends upon the person claiming to be entitled to possession of the property. 'Claiming to be entitled to possession of the property' is a common requisite both to S.517 and S.523 Cr. 'Claiming to be entitled to possession of the property' is a common requisite both to S.517 and S.523 Cr. P. C. In interpreting this aspect of the case in the disposal of the property after the conviction or acquittal or otherwise termination of the case came up for consideration in very many decisions of this court as well as other High Courts in our country. 4. In normal circumstances, on an acquittal or discharge, the property would be returned to the person from whom it was seized. Where there are circumstances showing that the person concerned has not claimed the property as his property specifically or where there are no grounds to hold that the property should belong to the accused, the evidence in the case would suggest that the property belonged to the complainant or when the discharge or acquittal is passed upon doubtness of the proof offered, the Magistrate has certainly got a discretion to return the property to the complainant and in such case it may be unreasonable to return the property to the accused. But, there are circumstances which depend upon the facts of each case. I will therefore examine few of the cases cited before me. In Sivasankara Pillai v. Parukutty Amma (196 KLT. 381) the property was kept in the court custody till the dispute was settled between the parties in a civil court. Again in Sammel v. State of Kerala (1963 KLT. 194) the direction was that the property should be returned to the party who was entitled to be in possession of the same. It was a case in which the title to the property could not be settled under S.517 Cr. P. C. That it should be given to the person from whom it is seized is not an invariable rule. The question has to be decided by the court concerned as to the person who would be entitled to the possession of the property. All the decisions cited before me go to show that the court is bound to return the property to the person who is entitled to be in possession of the same. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into all these decisions. But, there is another decision of this court reported in Velayudhan v. State of Kerala (1968 KLR. 262). That decision points out the implication of S.517. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into all these decisions. But, there is another decision of this court reported in Velayudhan v. State of Kerala (1968 KLR. 262). That decision points out the implication of S.517. In doing so, the following observation was made: "Under S.517 Cr. P.C. the Magistrate is given the power to make appropriate orders regarding the disposal of the property after trial is over. Thus after the disposal of the case the Magistrate may take up the question of disposal of the thondi and after equity it is competent for the court to give the necessary direction in respect of it. At one time it Was thought that the court is not competent to direct the disposal of the articles brought before it in the case, if the trial has ended in acquittal, since no offence was proved to have been committed in respect of such article. Now the position is different and under S.517 even though there has been no conviction or offence proved in which the property produced has been used, the court has power to pass an order regarding the disposal of the property, but in disposing of the claims of the various parties, the court has to bear in mind that it is called upon to decide only the question of possession and not that of ownership or title which has always to be decided by a Civil Court." But, in none of the decisions which were cited before me the question as to whether the "person claiming to be entitled to in possession", was not considered in respect of the nature of the property involved in the case as it was done in some of the decisions which I propose to deal with hereinafter. In Mohamaya Dasi v. Sanat Kumar (AIR. 1968 Calcutta 564) the question was as to the owner of a motor car. In dealing with the question as to the person entitled to possession in the case of a motor car, the above decision stated that the possession should be given to the person is whose name the registration certificate of the car stood at the time of its seizure. In dealing with the question as to the person entitled to possession in the case of a motor car, the above decision stated that the possession should be given to the person is whose name the registration certificate of the car stood at the time of its seizure. In dealing so, the following observation is made at page 567: "The certificates of registration and road permits issued by the State authorities of Bihar in pursuance of the Rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act have a presumption that the holder of the certificate and the road permit was in possession of the vehicle. As regards the question of title or ownership, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to decide it in a proceeding like the present one. The requirements of the other party whether it is for coming to the office or otherwise, cannot be equated with the rights conferred under the statute on the registered owner of a motor vehicle. For the reasons mentioned above, I hold that the order passed by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, in this respect can. not be supported and must therefore be set aside." 5. In Inder Singh v. Jaswant Singh (AIR. 1967 Punjab 411) the dispute was as regards a truck. That dispute was settled on the basis of the observation contained at page 412 which is as follows: "It is obvious that the person, who is better entitled to possession of such a truck, is an ostensible owner, that is, the complainant company. If intention of the legislature was to deliver such a property to the person from whom it was recovered, then the word "entitled" in S.523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was unnecessary and the legislature could have laid down that such a property should be delivered only to the person from whose possession it was taken. As such, while determining the question as to who is the person entitled to possession of the property, it is for the Court to see from some other circumstances also, and not from only one circumstance as to from whose possession it was taken by the police." 6. In Nandiram v. State of Gujarat (AIR, 1967 Gujarat 80) the dispute was again in respect of a motor vehicle. In Nandiram v. State of Gujarat (AIR, 1967 Gujarat 80) the dispute was again in respect of a motor vehicle. That was returned to the person in whose name the registration certificate stood at the time when the police seized it and the court made the following observation at page 81: "It follows from the provisions referred to hereabove that the registration certificate is an essential necessity before any such motor vehicle can be made use of and that any person in whose favour this certificate of registration is issued, obviously would be the owner thereof. In case of any transfer of ownership in respect of that motor vehicle, the procedure is contemplated under S.31 of the Act and till any such transfer of ownership is entered in the certificate of registration, one has to tike it that the person in whose favour such a certificate of registration is issued by the motor transport authorities is the owner and that way entitled to remain in possession thereof." 7. Similar view was held in Yousoof v. State (AIR. 1969 Mysore 203). There the question was as to the return of a scooter to the person who was the owner thereof. In that decision it is stated that the ownership as to who is entitled to possession cannot be decided without having reference to ownership of the property. In coming to the conclusion that the property should be returned to the owner, the following observation is made at page 205: "Now here in the course of the order the learned Magistrate declared that the second respondent is the owner. The Court has relied upon the tax token which discloses the name of the owner while ordering custody of the scooter to the second respondent. The question whether a person is entitled to possession of the property under S.523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. cannot be decided without having reference to the ownership of the property. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of Mr. Subbiah. Under S.523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Criminal Court is required to find out the person entitled to possession of property suspected to have been stolen or found in circumstances which create suspicion of commission of any offence. This is what the learned Magistrate has done in this case." 8. I agree to the principle laid down in the above decision. This is what the learned Magistrate has done in this case." 8. I agree to the principle laid down in the above decision. It is clear from these decisions that while deciding as to the person who is entitled to be in possession of the property the court is bound to go into the ownership of the property to decide the person who is entitled to be in possession of the same. There is nothing in the section to suggest that a third party to a proceeding cannot be given possession of the property seized during a police investigation or pending trial of a criminal case or even after the disposal of the case. In the instant case, the evidence was that the motor cycle was seized by the police at the place of the incident and not from the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent came into the picture only at a later stage claiming to be a pledgee of the motor vehicle from a third party and not from the revision petitioner. If the 1st respondent's contention is to be allowed, there would not be any sanctity for the ownership of a motor vehicle of a person who is entitled to keep possession of the same under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In this case, the petitioner had produced the certificate of registration of the vehicle in his name, the relevant insurance certificate and also tax receipt to show that the quarterly tax had been paid by him. Under these circumstances, it is open to the court to decide the person as to who is the owner of the vehicle without recourse to any other circumstance. It is not correct to say in such cases that the court is deciding title to the property. Ultimately, it may be the petitioner or the 1st respondent who would be entitled to the vehicle in question on a determination of the same in a civil court. That title need not be gone into in this proceeding. It is sufficient for this court to decide the person who is entitled to be in possession of the property and in respect of a motor vehicle the person in whose name the registration certificate stands is the person who would be entitled to be in possession of the vehicle under the provisions of S.517 Cr. It is sufficient for this court to decide the person who is entitled to be in possession of the property and in respect of a motor vehicle the person in whose name the registration certificate stands is the person who would be entitled to be in possession of the vehicle under the provisions of S.517 Cr. P. C. As I come to this conclusion, the court below is not correct in ordering to return the motor Vehicle to the 1st respondent. The order has no merit. 9. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the court below is set aside. The motor cycle KLT 7464 will be handed over to the revision petitioner. Allowed.