K. K. ADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 17. 6. 1983 whereby a bus, bearing registration number U. T. B. 2792 has been released on supurdnama to the non-applicant No. 2 in whose name, the certificate of registration of the bus stands, along with her nephew, Ashok Kumar. The said bus is the subject-matter in a prosecution of the applicants under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, on a report lodged by the non-applicant No, 2 on 11. 10. 1982 and seized on 15. 11. 1982 from the possession of the applicants. ( 2 ) THE matter has been vehemently argued before me on the question of jurisdiction and propriety on the part of the learned Magistrate to release the bus in favour of the non-applicant No. 2 and on the ownership, by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass the order on an application made under section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Codett, once a challan has been filed by the police. It was contended that the order for custody of the property could only be passed under section 451 of the Code. ( 4 ) CHAPTER XXXIV of the Code provides for the procedure for the disposal of the property. The scheme for disposal of property appears to be that: (I) Section 457, whenever any police officer reports to a magistrate regarding seizure of property but such property is not produced during an enquiry or trial, or (ii) Section 451 when any property is produced before a criminal Court during enquiry or trial or(iii) Section 452 when the enquiry or trial in concluded, the criminal Court gets the jurisdiction to pass order relating to the disposal of such property. These provisions show that the power is exercisable during enquiry or trial. It is an admitted position that the challan has been filed and the Court is seized of the matter. These provisions show that the power is exercisable during enquiry or trial. It is an admitted position that the challan has been filed and the Court is seized of the matter. The matter has crossed the stage of investigation and therefore, the learned Court below had the jurisdiction to pass order relating to the seized property either under section 457 or 451 of the Code, depending upon the fact whether the seized property has or has not been produced during the enquiry after presentation of the challan. In view of the above, in my opinion, the learned counsel was not correct in his submission that the learned Magistrate could not have passed the order of release of the bus under section 457 of the Code. I have perused the records of the case and I find that there are three applications under section 457 of the Code for release of the bus on supurdnama, including that of the applicant No 1 and the non-applicant No. 2. Third application was by one Subhash kumar. In my opinion, all the three applications were maintainable and the learned Court had the jurisdiction to decide. It is pertinent to note that is only in the application of the non- applicant No. 2 that it has been specifically averred that the said bus which has been seized from the applicants, is in the police-station, Kanti. It is also pertinent to note that all the three applications are dated 18. 10. 1982 and the challan has been filed on, 17. 10. 1982, by the police. Under these circumstances it does not appear that the police did not produce before the Court the seized property on the date of the challan was filed. ( 5 ) IT was next contended that the learned Magistrate should not have exercised his discretion in releasing the said bus in favour of the non-applicant No. 2. 1 find from the record that each of the persons claiming release of the bus on, supurdnama claimed on the ground, of ownership of the bus except the applicant No 1. None of the applications dated 18. 10. 1982 under section 457 of the Code made by the parties is supported by an affidavit. 1 find from the record that each of the persons claiming release of the bus on, supurdnama claimed on the ground, of ownership of the bus except the applicant No 1. None of the applications dated 18. 10. 1982 under section 457 of the Code made by the parties is supported by an affidavit. Under the circumstances, the learned Magistrate exercised his discretion in favour of the non-applicant No. 2 who had prima facie proved her ownership by the certificate of registration of the bus, U. T. B. 2792. In my opinion, such exercise of discretion cannot said to be arbitrary or without application of mind. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants next submitted that since the applicants have purchased the bus, the matter would be governed by the provisions of the Sale of Good Act and not by section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. According to the learned counsel, after purchase of the chasis from one Abdul Hussain, the applicants spent money to fabricate a body for the bus. It was submitted that the receipts of various purchases made by the applicants to build the, body of the bus are on record. In my opinion, no observation, at this stage, is called for which would prejudice the merits of the case of the parties concerned as the trial is still pending. So far as the provision of section 31 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is concerned, it will be seen that the provision pertains to transfer of ownership of motor vehicles registered under Chapter III. Section 23 requires every owner of a motor vehicle to be registered. It may be that for transfer of ownership of a registered motor vehicle, provisions of section 31 are not a bar but for exercise of the jurisdiction under section 457 of the Code, some sound principle is required to be adopted. The applications dated 18. 10. 1982 made by the parties under section 457 of the Code were not supported by affidavits and the only prima facie evidence available before the learned Magistrate was the certificate of registration issued by, the Regional Transport Officer, Jabalpur, on the basis of which the bus was released to the non-applicant No. 2. The applications dated 18. 10. 1982 made by the parties under section 457 of the Code were not supported by affidavits and the only prima facie evidence available before the learned Magistrate was the certificate of registration issued by, the Regional Transport Officer, Jabalpur, on the basis of which the bus was released to the non-applicant No. 2. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants further argued that since the bus was seized from the- applicants, it should have been released on supurdnama to them. There is considerable, force in this argument but, in my opinion, it was a matter within the discretion of trial Magistrate and the same having been exercised on a sound principle, it does not call for interference in this revision. It may be pointed out that the release of the property on supurdnama does not decide the ownership. It is a temporary arrangement and the supurdar is under obligation to maintain the property in the same condition on which it was released to him. It. may also be pointed out that although a certificate of registration of the motor vehicle is a prima facie evidence the presumption of ownership drawn is rebut table if conditions as are required under section 31 on the Motor Vehicles Act are complied with. These are the questions which are yet to be determined by a competent Court of law. ( 8 ) THE revision has no force and is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, directed that the learned Magistrate should decide the case expeditiously. The records of the case, which were called by this court, are directed to be returned forthwith for completion of the proceedings pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanti-Kurwara, in accordance with the provisions of law. .