JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - The Petitioner who is the elder brother of the late husband of Smt. Pravat Nalini Misra (opp. party No. 1) has come up in revision against the order passed by the S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal in G.R. Case No. 259/79 directing return of the motor cycle No. ORU 2523 to Smt. Pravat Nalini Misra. 2. On 14-7-1979 Chandra Sekhar Misra (Petitioner) was riding the above motor cycle which met with an accident with a State Transport Bus. A case was registered against the Petitioner u/s 279/337, Indian Penal Code. During investigation the motor cycle was seized. Thereafter both Chandra Sekhar Misra and Pravat Smt. Nalini Misra claimed the seized motor cycle. Both sides produced documentary evidence in support of their respective claims and the Magistrate relying on the registration certificate, tax token and other documents ultimately held that Smt. Pravat Nalini Misra, as the wife of the registerer owner of the motor cycle, is entitled to the possession of the motor cycle. 3. In this Court Mr. Kar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, assails the finding of the learned Magistrate on the ground that he has not considered some of the documents produced by his client and his client has not been allowed to adduce evidence in support of the fact that the motor cycle is a joint family property, or in the alternative, Bijay Kumar Misra in whose favour the motor cycle is purchased was merely a benamidar and the consideration money for the purchase was paid by the Petitioner. 4. Under the provisions of Section 457(1), Code of Criminal Procedure which is the same as Section 523(1), Code of Criminal Procedure (old), a Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the delivery of a property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or if such person cannot be ascertained respecting the custody and production of such property. Once the property is seized under the circumstances mentioned in the provisions of Section 457(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, irrespective of the fact whether the investigation by the police discloses an offence or not the Magistrate will dispose of the property. While doing so he has got absolute discretion to pass an order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property and deliver the same to the person entitled to the possession thereof. While doing so he has got absolute discretion to pass an order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property and deliver the same to the person entitled to the possession thereof. The Court is to satisfy itself from the records and materials available before it that the person to whom the delivery is ordered is entitled to possession. The words used in the section are the person entitled to the possession thereof. In passing the order the Court should confine itself only to find out as to who is entitled to the possession of the property but not the title or ownership thereof. The above principle finds support from the decision reported in A.S.S. Ahmed Sahib Vs. Commissioner of Police, Madras and Another, . In this case before the learned Magistrate opp. party No. 1 produced the certificate of registration and the latest tax token dated 30-3-1979. That Smt. Pravat Nalini Misra is the legal heir of late Bijay Kumar Misra is not disputed in this case. Mr. Kar submitted that the two letters produced in this case written by Bijay Kumar Misra to Smt. Pravat Nalini Misra showing that the money for the purchase of the motor cycle was paid by Chandra Sekhar Misra have not been considered. But I find that the Magistrate has discussed about these letters in his order. Even assuming that the Petitioner provided money for purchase of the motor cycle, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that Smt. Pravat Nalini Misra is not entitled to the possession of the same. The Petitioner may agitate the question of title in a proper Court of law. The motor cycle has been directed to be handed over to Smt. Pravat Nalini Misra on her executing a bond of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety for the like amount. So proper security has been demanded from Smt. Pravat Nalini Misra before handing over the property to her. 5. After hearing the argument of both sides and considering the facts and circumstances of the case I see no reason to differ from the finding of the learned Magistrate. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed