JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanti, J. - This Criminal Revision is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Cuttack reversing an order u/s 457, Code of Criminal Procedure passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Cuttack. 2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The Petitioner Prabhat Kumar Das took a truck bearing registration No. ORP 5786 from the State Bank of India, Puri Branch on hire purchase agreement. As he could not ply the truck and pay the instalments of the loan taken from the Bank, he entered into an agreement with the opp. party on 7-11-1979. The terms of the agreement were as follows: 1. The Opp. party would pay hire charges of Rs. 3500/- per month to the Bank to liquidate the outstanding loan with interest amounting to Rs. 1,10,771/- and pay road tax, insurance premium etc. in respect of the vehicle. 2. On the expiry of three years or on clearance of the Bank loan in full, whichever is earlier, the truck would be transferred in the names of both the parties, each having 50 per cent share therein. 3. If the monthly hire charges would at any time be in arrear and remain unpaid for two months after the same became due, it would be lawful for the Petitioner to take back possession of the truck. In pursuance of the above agreement the opp. party No. 1 took possession of the truck and plied the same. The truck met with an accident on 23-4-1980 and was seized by the police in course of investigation. Both parties approached the Investigating officer for release of the truck claiming the same to be in their respective possession. The Investigating Officer by his application dated 30-4-1980 sought for instruction's from the S.D.J.M. The Petitioner filed an application before the S.D.J.M. for release of the truck in his favour claiming himself to be the owner thereof without disclosing the agreement dated 7.11-1979 entered into between the parties. The opp. party No. 1 also filed an application for release of the truck claiming to have been in possession of the truck by virtue of the agreement dated 7-11-1979. He filed the agreement and some other documents in proof of his possession. 3. After enquiry, the learned S.D.J.M. found that the opp. party No. 1 was in possession of the truck at the time of seizure. He filed the agreement and some other documents in proof of his possession. 3. After enquiry, the learned S.D.J.M. found that the opp. party No. 1 was in possession of the truck at the time of seizure. But he came to hold that the opp. party No. 1 had failed to pay the instalment for the month of January, 1980 and as such he was not entitled to retain the truck in his possession from 1-4-1980. He also held that since the insurance certificate and the registration certificate stood in the name of the Petitioner the vehicle could not be plied by the opp. party No. 1. Upon such findings, he directed the vehicle to be released in favour of the Petitioner subject to his executing a bond for Rs. 1,40,000/- with one surety for the like amount and undertaking to abide by certain other conditions. 4. The Petitioner filed Criminal Revision No. 72 of 1980 before the Sessions Judge for waiving the conditions imposed against him. The opp. party No. 1 also filed Criminal Revision No. 70 of 1980 challenging the order for release of the truck in favour of the Petitioner. Both the Criminal Revisions were heard together and by a common order the learned Sessions Judge held that the Opp. party No. 1 was in actual physical possession of the truck on the date of the accident in pursuance of a lawful agreement between the parties and that it was not desirable that the criminal Court should enter into complicated questions as to whether the terms of the agreement had been violated or not. Accordingly he set aside the order of the learned S.D.J.M. and directed the vehicle to be released in favour of the opp. party No. 1 on his executing a bond for Rs. 1,11.000/ with one surety for the like amount and undertaking to produce the truck in Court whenever required. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner has come up in revision. 5. Under the provisions of Sections 457, Code of Criminal Procedure if the Magistrate orders delivery of the property he has to deliver it to the person entitled to the possession thereof. He has to satisfy himself from the records and materials available before him that the person to whom the delivery is ordered is entitled to possession. 5. Under the provisions of Sections 457, Code of Criminal Procedure if the Magistrate orders delivery of the property he has to deliver it to the person entitled to the possession thereof. He has to satisfy himself from the records and materials available before him that the person to whom the delivery is ordered is entitled to possession. If the materials are not sufficient he can make an enquiry into the matter by giving opportunity to the claimants before passing the order. In doing, so, the Magistrate should confine himself only to find out as to who is entitled to possession of the property but not the title or ownership thereof. A person may be in unlawful possession at the time of seizure and in that circumstances, it cannot be said that he is entitled to possession. It must be a lawful possession. The test, therefore, is not the mere possession of the property at the time of seizure, but as to who is entitled to lawful possession. The expression "entitled to possession" is the sine qua non for the delivery of property u/s 457, Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. As indicated earlier, the Magistrate after enquiry found that the opp. party No. 1 was in possession of the truck on the date of seizure by virtue of the agreement dated 7-11-1979. The receipts and vouchers filed on behalf of the opp. party No. 1 clearly show that he was in, possession of the truck on the basis of the agreement. Whether the opp. party No. 1 has committed a breach of the contract is not to be determined in these proceedings. No doubt, the truck is not registered in the name of the opp. party No. 1 and therefore he may not ply it on road. These questions are not for consideration of the criminal Court in a proceeding u/s 457, Code of Criminal Procedure. On the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the possession of the opp. party No. 1 at the time of seizure was unlawful. Once the Magistrate ascertains after enquiry the person from whose possession the property was seized and whose possession was not unlawful then the Magistrate must hold him to be entitled to the possession of the same. The learned Session Judge was, therefore, justified in directing release of the truck in favour of opp. Once the Magistrate ascertains after enquiry the person from whose possession the property was seized and whose possession was not unlawful then the Magistrate must hold him to be entitled to the possession of the same. The learned Session Judge was, therefore, justified in directing release of the truck in favour of opp. party No. 1 on conditions. 7. There is no merit in this Criminal Revision and it is accordingly dismissed, the order of the learned Sessions Judge being affirmed. Final Result : Dismissed