JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application in revision filed by Roodmal and Mali Ram against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, dated August 9, 1982, by which the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Jaipur District Jaipur, dated January 19, 1980, was dismissed and the order of judicial Magistrate No. 1 delivering the tractor in dispute to Hazarilal, non-petitioner No. 2 was confirmed. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to this revision petition may be shortly stated as follows. Roodmal and Maliram lodged a written report with the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur wherein it was alleged that Hazarilal non. petitioner No. 2 agreed to sell away his tractor No. M P.D. 7214 to the complainants for a sum of Rs. 37, 700/-. The tractor was purchased by Hazarilal from Bhenru Singh son of Shri Vikram Singh Rajput, resident of Indore. In pursuance to the agreement to sell Hazarilal accepted a sum of Rs. 700/- from the complainant on the date of agreement i.e., October 8, 1970. Out of the remaining sum, an amount of Rs. 32,000/- was paid in cash by the complainants to Hazarilal on October 11, 1970 and regarding the rest of the sum of Rs. 5000/-, the complainants executed a pronote in the vendor's favour. Hazarilal vendor promised to get ownership of the tractor transferred in the name of vendees. Later on, however, Hazarilal turned dishonest and sold away he tractor to Jagdish, Rameshwar and Bansi without informing the complainants and assisted the vendees in obtaining loan from the bank by way of pledge of the tractor. In order to suppress this fact of re-sale Hazarilal persuaded the complainants to ply the tractor in partnership of Rameshwar, Jagdish and Bansi, but in fact kept the registration certificate and other relevant papers regarding the ownership of the tractor with him and continued to ply the tractor in the name of the partners Rameshwar, Jagdish and Bansi. As Ramrshwar, Jagdish and Bansi had obtained loan from the bank on the tractor and as they could not pay off the loan and the interest thereon, the Bank took the tractor into its possession but Hazarilal played a trick and asked the complainants i.e., Roodmal and Maliram to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the hank. The complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the hank. The complainants deposited a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in the bank but the tractor was not released. Hazarilal, thereupon, further asked the complainants to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,332.35 P more in the bank and get the tractor released. Whole of this amount was deposited by Hazarilal and his son Mannalal in the bank and got the tractor released. The tractor was brought to the house of the complainants where it lay for sometime. The complainants brought some furniture in the tractor to their shop at Jaipur on May 18, 1975. The tractor was driven by Hazarilal's son Mannalal, as the complainants did not know driving. After unloading the furniture Hazarilal's son Mannalal told the complainants that the tractor was not in order and so he would bring it back after necessary repairs. Saying this, Mannalal took away the tractor to his house and did not return it to the complainants on May 19, 1975, despite repeated requests by them. Later on, on June 5, 1975 the complainants approached Hazarilal for bringing their tractor but the latter denied to hand over the possession of the tractor to them and in this manner committed criminal breach of trust. 3. On receipt of this written report the Superintendent of Police, Joipur sent it to the S.H.O for investigation. The S.H.O. registered a criminal case under section 420-406 I.P.C on the basis of the written report filed by Roodmal and Mali Ram and took up usual investigation into the matter. Hazarilal was arrested and the tractor was seized from his possession by the police on March 19, 1976. The police investigated into the matter and eventually, filed a charge-sheet against Hazarilal in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur District, Jaipur under section 406 and 420 I.P.C. The learned judicial Magistrate however, discharged Hazarilal from the charges levelled against him and passed an order that the tractor in question be handed over to Hazarilal by Roodmal in whose superdginama the tractor was on the date of discharge, i.e., January 19, 1980. Aggrieved by this order regarding the delivery of the tractor to Hazarilal, Roodmal and Maliram filed an appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur, who after hearing the parties confirmed the order of judicial Magistrate vide his judgment dated August 9, 1982 and against this judgment of the Sessions Judge, Roodmal and Mali Ram have come up in revision to this Court. 4. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. R.S. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H.M. Bhargava, learned counsel for the non-petitioners. 5. It has been extraneously urged before me by Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioners that the circumstances of this case and the materials on the record indicate the it the petitioners were the persons best entitled to the possession of the tractor and it was inequitable to restore it to the possession of Hazarilal from whom it was seized by the police. It was further urged by Mr. R.S. Purohit that it has been conclusively established by the petitioners that the tractor in question was purchased by them from Hazarilal after paying the full price thereof to the latter. So both the courts below have committed an error in handing over the possession of the tractor back to Hazarilal specially when Ramesshwar, Jagidsh and Bansi to whom the tractor was subsequently sold by Hazarilal gave it in writing that they had no interest left in the tractor and that the same may be handed over to the possession of Roodmal and Mali Ram. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Hazarilal on the other hand contended that when the judicial Magistrate held that no offence has been committed by Hazarilal in respect of the tractor in question, he committed no error in restoring it to Hazarilal from whose possession it was seized by the police. It was further argued by Mr. Bhargava, learned counsel for Hazarilal, that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the judicial, Magistrate and the Sessions judge improperly exercised their discretion to hand over the tractor back to Hazarilal, who got it released from the bank after paying off the entire amount of loan secured by Rameshwar, Jagdish and Bansi. Bhargava, learned counsel for Hazarilal, that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the judicial, Magistrate and the Sessions judge improperly exercised their discretion to hand over the tractor back to Hazarilal, who got it released from the bank after paying off the entire amount of loan secured by Rameshwar, Jagdish and Bansi. According to his submission, Hazarilal is shown to be the registered owner of the tractor having all other relevant documents regarding its ownership in his possession and so he alone could exercise rights as well as liabilities under the statute i.e., Motor Vehicles Act. In support of his contention he relied on (1) Smt. Mahamaya Dasi v. Sanat Kumar Law and other, ALR 1998 Calcutta 564, and (2) Nandiram v. State of Gujarat and others, A.I.R. 1967 Gujarat-80. 7. I have considered the rival contentions mentioned above. It is no doubt true that ordinarily where there is no material on record to show that any offence has been committed in regard to certain property which is found in possession of the accused or that the property has been used in the commission of any offence, the court is not justified to order the accused to part with such property in favour of the complainants, but there are exceptions to this general rule, such as where the circumstances of a particular case so warrant and materials on record so indicate that it would be improper and unjust to restore the property to the possession of the person from whom it was seized, the court may in the proper exercise of its discretion issue a direction regarding the restoration of the seized property to the complainants who in its opinion is the person best entitled to its possession. Reference in this connection may be made to the authority of (3) Prakesh Chand Jain v. Jagdish and another, A.I.R. 1958 M. P. 270, and (4) Sher Singh v. Chet Ram and others, 1969 Cr. L. J. 838. In the instant case from a bare reading of the photostat copy of the deed of agreement dated October 8, 1970, it is obvious that Hazarilal executed an agreement to sell the tractor in favour of Roodmal and Maliram and obtained a sum of Rs. 700/- from them towards its price on October 8, 1970, and, later on, obtained a further sum of Rs. 700/- from them towards its price on October 8, 1970, and, later on, obtained a further sum of Rs. 32,000/- on October 11, 1970. For the rest of the amount of Rs. 5,000/- Roodmal and Mali Ram are alleged to have executed a promote in favour of Hazarilal who admitted in his reply to the notice dated March 5, 1973, given to him by Roodmal and Maliram that the entire agreed amount of Rs. 37,700/- was received by him from the vendees as full price of the tractor. It is further evident from the photostat copy of the document dated October 11, 1970, that the possession of the tractor was delivered to Roodmal and Maliram by Hazarilal after the sale thereof. Hence, it may be safely held on the basis of referred to above documents that the tractor in dispute was sold away to Roodmal and Maliram petitioners by Hazarilal after accepting its full price and that Hazarilal promised that he would get the ownership and registration of the tractor transferred to the names of the petitioners. The contention of Mr. Bhargava, counsel for Hazarilal that the petitioners are not the persons best entitled to the possession of tractor because, later on, they had entered into partnership with Rameshwar, Jagdish and Bansi for plying the tractor and obtained a sum of Rs. 19,350/- from them, is not acceptable because Jagdish Sharma and Ramehwar filed an application on March 29, 1976 in the court of Judicial Magistrate Jaipur that they have no objection, if the possession of the tractor is given to Roodmal and Maliram petitioners as their partnership has come to an end. In support of their application, Jagdish Sharma swore an affidavit which reads as follows :HINDI MATTER 8. Hence, in my opinion, the direction given by the Judicial Magistrate regarding restoration of the seized tractor to Hazarilal was clearly improper and unreasonable. Hazarilal was not the person best entitled to the possession of the tractor, as he had already sold away the tractor to Roodmal and Maliram petitioners after accepting full price thereof from them. Hence, in my opinion, the direction given by the Judicial Magistrate regarding restoration of the seized tractor to Hazarilal was clearly improper and unreasonable. Hazarilal was not the person best entitled to the possession of the tractor, as he had already sold away the tractor to Roodmal and Maliram petitioners after accepting full price thereof from them. The mete fact that the petitioners instituted a suit for recovery of the price of the tractor against Rameshwar, Jagdish and Bansi in the civil court is not sufficient to disentitle them to the possession of the tractor, because, as stated earlier, Jagdish and Rameshwar clearly admitted in their application dated March 29, 1976 that the partnership has been dissolved they have no objection, if the possession of the tractor is given to Roodmal and Maliram. There is no reason to disbelieve the fact given in this application because Jagdish has put in his affidavit in support thereof. When the dispute if any, between the petitioners on one hand and Remeshwar, Jagdish and Bansi on the other, regarding the possession of the tractor has been settled and the partnership has been dissolved as is evident from the application and the affidavit. Hazarilal cannot he heard to by that the petitioners ate not the persons best entitled to the possession of the tractor, because the tractor was got released by him from the bank after depositing a sum of Rs. 13,332, 35P towards the loan secured by Rameshwear, Jagdish and Bansi if he has paid any amount to the bank on behalf of Rameshwar, Jagdish and Bans, he may persue his remedy in the civil court for recovery thereof. It will not be out of place to place to mention that the petitioners have alleged that a sum of Rs. 15,000/- was deposited by them in the bank through Maliram towards this loan at the instance of lazarilal. The conduct of the petitioners does not appear to be such as may disentitle them to the possession of the tractor. Consequently, I have no hesitation in holding that both the courts below did not exercise their judicial discretion in a proper manner in handing over the tractor back to Hazarilal. The conduct of the petitioners does not appear to be such as may disentitle them to the possession of the tractor. Consequently, I have no hesitation in holding that both the courts below did not exercise their judicial discretion in a proper manner in handing over the tractor back to Hazarilal. In my opinion it would be equitable in the circumstances of this case to hand over possession of the tractor to the petitioners who have purchased it from Hazarilal after paying to the latter the full price thereof. 9. Hence I accept the revision petition, set aside the order of the Sessions Judge dated August 9, 1982 and the order of the judicial Magistrate dated ,January 19, 1980 and direct that the possession of the tractor shall remain with the petitioners and shall not be handed over to Hazarilal non-petitioner No. 2. However, a condition is imposed on the petitioners that they shall furnish a solvent security in the court of judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur Distt. that the tractor or the value thereof shall be produced in the court in case the rival claimant, if any, establishes a title to it. *******