JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - This application under sections 401 and 482, Criminal Procedure Code has been filed by the informant in G.R. Case No. 370-N of 1984 against the revisional order of the learned Sessions Judge, Puri directing delivery of the vehicle in question (ORX 5219) to the opposite party No. 1 during pendency of the case. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of the present proceeding are that opposite party No. 1, Abdul Raheman Khan, took a loan from the State Bank of India, Nimapara Branch, opposite party No. 3 (fort short 'the Bank') and purchased a Matador vehicle bearing registration No. ORX 5219 from M/s. Utkal Automobiles Limited for a total sum of Rs. 1,13,000/-. The vehicle was hypothecated to the Bank. Abdul Gafar Khan, opposite party No. 2, is the guarantor for the loan taken by opposite party No. 1. According to the petitioner, since opposite party No. 1 could not pay the instalments of the loan to the Bank he entered into an agreement with him on 24-1-1984 as per the terms of which he was to discharge the loan taken by opposite party No. 1 from the Bank. Under the terms of the said agreement possession of the vehicle was delivered to the petitioner. The petitioner further alleged that while he was in custody of the vehicle, on the night of 7/8-9-1984 at about 2 or 3 a.m. Surendra Bharati, driver, removed the vehicle from his custody. The petitioner lodged an F.I.R. about the incident on 8-9-1984 at 4.30 p.m. On the basis of the said report the Officer-in-charge, Nimapara Police Station registered the case, G.R. No. 370-N under section 379, Indian Penal Code against the said Surendra Bharati. In course of the investigation of the case, the vehicle in question was seized having been found in front of the quarter of opposite party No. 2 at Bhubaneswar. Both the petitioner as well as opposite party No. 1 advanced claims for the interim custody of the vehicle. 3. On hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 18-9-1984 directed interim custody of the vehicle to be loft with the informant-petitioner on execution of bond for Rs. 80,000/- with two sureties for the like amount subject to the conditions mentioned in the order. 4. 3. On hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate by his order dated 18-9-1984 directed interim custody of the vehicle to be loft with the informant-petitioner on execution of bond for Rs. 80,000/- with two sureties for the like amount subject to the conditions mentioned in the order. 4. Against the aforesaid order opposite parties 1 and 2 moved the Sessions Judge, Puri in revision (Criminal Revision No. 201 of 1984). The learned Sessions Judge reversed the order of the trial court and directed that the seized vehicle be kept in custody of opposite party No. 1 on his execution bond for Rs. 80,000/- with one surety for the like amount subject to the other conditions mentioned in the order. This order is impugned in the present application. 5. Section 457, Criminal Procedure Code which is material for the purpose of the present proceeding reads as follows : - "457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property. (1) Whenever the seizure of the property by any police officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during one enquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such 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. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on which conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation." From the provisions quoted above, it is clear that the Magistrate can take one of three courses :- (i) He has discretion to pass any order he thinks fit for disposal; or (ii) to deliver it to the person entitled to it subject to such condition, if any that he may impose; or (iii) if there is no such person, pass an order for its custody and production. The discretion conferred is limited to the selection one of two alternatives (i) delivery to the person entitled; and (ii) disposal. The Magistrate has the widest discretion in the matter of disposal. But if he decides to deliver it to a person, he must deliver it to the person entitled to possession and if the person entitled to possession is not known he shall issue a proclamation requiring any person claiming the property to establish his claim. The person entitled to the possession of the property, may not be a person who owns it. In certain circumstances property recovered from a person may be handed over to another person. The Magistrate has to decide who was entitled to possession at the time of seizure and not merely who was in possession, for a man may be in possession but not entitled to it. The question as to who is entitled to possession cannot be decided without having reference to ownership of property. 6. In the present case, as already indicated, both the parties laid claims for interim custody of the vehicle in question. They produced document in support of their respective claims. The position that emerges on perusal of the materials on record is that, the registration certificate in respect of the vehicle stood in the name of opposite party No. 1. The vehicle was hypothecated to the State Bank of India, Nimapara. The vehicle was found to be parked in front of the premises, in occupation of opposite party No. 2 (Guarantor) at the time of seizure. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge that he has considered the documents produced by both parties. On consideration he has held that from terms of agreement (Ext. 1) it is not clear that the possession of the vehicle was delivered to the petitioner. He has also given his reasons for holding the opposite party No. 2 to be the person entitled to interim custody of the vehicle till the disposal of the case. 7. The order does not suffer from any palpable error so as to call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and accordingly the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed