JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Disposal of two buses bearing registration Nos. OSP 111 and asp 1999 during investigation of an offence u/s 379 I.P.C. is the subject matter of this Criminal Revision. 2. Opposite Party No. 1 lodged an F.I.R. that in his absence on account of domestic disputes his six brothers have taken away the two buses from his compound. On the basis of third report, the two buses were seized and the Investigating Officer made a prayer to the Court for release of the buses since they were lying in front of the Police-station. Petitioners, opposite party No. 1 and the Bank advancing loan to purchase OSP 1999 which remained outstanding, each made applications for release of the buses in their favour to the exclusion of other applicants. When the matter was being heard, the learned Counsel for the Bank submitted that the Bank would have no objection if the bus OSP 1999 is released in fovour of opposite party No. 1. Trial Court on consideration of the materials produced before it released the two houses in favour of opposite party No. 1, since he is registered owner under the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The two buses which have been seized were not produced before the Court. Accordingly, Section 457 Code of Criminal Procedure would be the appropriate provision under which Court is to exercise the power. It reads as follows: 457. Procedure by Police upon seizure of property. (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police is reported to a Magistrate under the pro visions of this Code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry of 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 per son 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 such 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. 4. Dealing with the scope of this section Supreme Court in the decision reported in Ram Parkash Sharma Vs. State of Haryana, observed: ...Be that as it may the situation is squarely covered by Section 451 Code of Criminal Procedure However, the fact that the Court has power to dispose of property seized by the police but not yet produced before the Court does not mean that the Special Judge must always release such property to the person from whom the property has been recovered especially when the stage of the case is in suspicion, the investigation is not over and charge-sheet has not yet been laid. The Court has to be circumspect in such a situation before releasing the property.... 5. Section 457 Code of Criminal Procedure is an enabling provision and is not a mandate to the Court. Exercise of power under this section would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. For the purpose of exercise of such Power, Court is to consider-- Whether the property seized would be delivered at that stage and in case it decides in favour of such disposal, it is to consider as to the person who would be entitled to it. Where the person entitled as decided by the Court is known there is no difficulty. Where the Person entitled is not known, the requirements of Section 457(2) Code of Criminal Procedure would have to be complied with. Where, however, the person entitled is not decertainable, it shall make such order as it thinks fit respecting custody and production of the property. 6. In all circumstances, registered owners are not the persons entitled to the motor vehicles seized. In the present case, as he records discloses there is dispute in the family of seven brothers who carry on business of transport from the time of their father. 6. In all circumstances, registered owners are not the persons entitled to the motor vehicles seized. In the present case, as he records discloses there is dispute in the family of seven brothers who carry on business of transport from the time of their father. While the Petitioners claim that in view of the dispute, there was settlement made by gentlemen on 4.10.1986 which was reduced to writing, such document is assailed by it he opposite party No. 1. Several other documents have been filed in support of the respective claims. In such circumstances to ascertain the person entitled to the two or any of the buses in an enquiry of this nature would be encroaching upon the civil rights of the parties which can be best adjudicated upon by a Civil Court. This is a circumstance where it can safely be concluded that the person entitled to the property seized is not ascertainable. Therefore, Court is to make such order which would be beneficial to all the parties and would not affect the interest of any party. 7. If the buses are not delivered to any party, they will be damaged and shall become scrap only by the time the prosecution comes to an end. Since they have been seized, Bank will not be in a position to put them to sale to recover the outstanding loan, if any. The transport business of either party would also be affected. The buses should be used for the transport business. In case custody and use of each bus is put to auction annually confined to the accused persons and the informant the interest of each person would be protected. The highest bidder of deposit of the bid amount in Court in respect of the bus will be in custody of the buses for the year on undertaking given by him that he shall use the bus while being in custody as a prudent owner and shall meet all expenses for upkeep of the bus and use thereof. The highest bidder of deposit of the bid amount in Court in respect of the bus will be in custody of the buses for the year on undertaking given by him that he shall use the bus while being in custody as a prudent owner and shall meet all expenses for upkeep of the bus and use thereof. The bid amount in deposit in respect of each bus shall be paid to the successful party in the Criminal case since it is not the case of any party that the buses belong to some outsider The buses shall be produced as and when required by the Court or on completion of the period of auction whichever is earlier security for keeping the bus in good running condition shall be given by the highest bider is that the Court can enforce maintenance of the bus in good condition in case it is satisfied that the bus is not properly maintained. So far as the Bank, it can produce the account in Court in respect of the bus OSP 1999 and in case both the informant as well as the accused persons admit the liability and account, the bid money in respect of OSP 1999 can be paid to the Bank in adjustment of the outstanding loan and interest thereon. Trial Court shall follow the aforesaid observation in disposal of the two buses in exercise of power u/s 457 Code of Criminal Procedure. 8. Parties are directed to appear in the Court of Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate on 2nd May. 1980 (Monday) on which day, the buses shall be put to auction and disposal shall be directed on that basis. 9. In the result, the Criminal Revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, Send back the records immediately through special messenger so as to reach the Court of the Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Puri on or before 1st May, 1988. Final Result : Allowed