C. P. SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant-complainant has preferred this revision against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge in revision directing handing over of the seized truck on the supurdnama of the non-applicant No. 2. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the truck No. MPR. 4202 belonged to Kalyansingh, father of the non-applicant No. 2. He sold the said truck to one Baijanath Singh for Rs. 15,000/- but the truck was not transferred in his name as the full price was yet to be paid. It is alleged that Baijanath Singh entered into partnership with the applicant and placed the truck in the applicants possession. It is also alleged that on 14-6-1970 the said truck was stolen by Kalyansing his driver Santosh Kumar and cleaner Beharilal. The truck was seized and Kalyansingh, Santosh Kumar and Beharilal were prosecuted for the offences under sections 379 and 381 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code. The truck was given on the supurdnama of one Trilochansingh. During pendency of the case Kalyansingh died and the case against him was abated. Santosh Kumar was declared absconding. However, by judgment dated 9-4-1980 the third accused Beharilal was acquitted and it was directed that the case against Santosh Kumar be consigned to the record room and to be revised on his arrest. No order was passed regarding disposal of the seized, truck. The non- applicant No, 2 then filed an, application under S. 451 of the Code before the trial Magistrate for return of the truck on his supurdnama. The application was opposed by the present applicant who was given notice. The trial Magistrate rejected the prayer. The non-applicant No, 2 preferred revision which has been allowed and the seized truck has been ordered to be given on the supurdnama of the non-applicant No. 2 on his executing a bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount with the condition to maintain the truck in a running order and in the same condition and to produce it in Court whenever required. ( 3 ) THE contention is that the truck belongs to the applicant and it was stolen from his possession and on his report Kalyansingh, his driver and cleaner were prosecuted, so it was not proper on the part of the Addi. Sessions Judge to have returned the truck to non-applicant No. 2 who is son of Kalyansingh. ( 3 ) THE contention is that the truck belongs to the applicant and it was stolen from his possession and on his report Kalyansingh, his driver and cleaner were prosecuted, so it was not proper on the part of the Addi. Sessions Judge to have returned the truck to non-applicant No. 2 who is son of Kalyansingh. ( 4 ) AFTER having heard the parties, I am of the opinion that there is no case made out for interfering with the order of the Addi. Sessions Judge returning the seized truck on the supurdnama of the non-applicant No. 2. It may be mentioned that an Ikrarnama was produced by non-applicant No. 2 which has been executed by Baijanath Singh that he has no claim over the truck and it be given to N. A. No. 2. An affidavit has also been filed in this Court saying that non-applicant No. 2 is the owner of the truck No, MPR. 4202 and he has no right or claim over the said truck. He has no objection in handing over the truck on the supurdnama of the non-applicant No. 2. The power of attorney given by him (Baijanath) to the applicant has since been cancelled by him. Admittedly, the truck is registered in the name of Kalyansingh, father of the non-applicant No. 2. The applicant has no right as such over the truck and his claim, if any, is against his vendor Baijanathsingh. As Baijanathsingh did not pay the full price, the truck was not transferred in his name. Since the challan was filed in the case and the trial against the absconding driver Santosh Kumar is pending, the application under section 451 of the Code was rightly entertained. If no challan was filed, then the application under section 457 would have lay. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY the revision fails and it is dismissed. Revision dismissed. .