JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482, Cr.PC is directed against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi, dated 8th October, 1986. 2. Brief facts of the case are that tractor No. RJC 2683 was seized by the S.H.O., Police Station Talera in connection with a case registered on First Information Report No. 83/1986 under Sections 420 and 406, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner filed an application under Section 451, Cr.PC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi for delivering the tractor to him One Harjendra Singh also filed an application for giving the tractor on 'Supurdginama' and the 3rd application was submitted by the Manager, Bank of Baroda, Talera for the same purpose. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed all the three applications by his impugned order dated 8th October, 1986. The petitioner Heera Lal aggrieved against the aforesaid order has filed this petition under Section 482, Cr.PC. 3. I have heard Mr. Sanjay Mehrish for the petitioner, Mr. K.K. Sharma for the non-petitioners Harjendra Singh and Kripal Sjngh and Mr. Krishna Mathur for the Bank of Baroda. 4. The case of the petitioner Heeralal is that on 5th August, 1986 his driver Bheru Singh was taking goods in the petitioners' tractor No. RJC 2638 and trolly No. RND 6130 from Aklera to Churelia. The Police, Aklera seized the above tractor and trolly under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On coming to know about the seizure of the above tractor and trolly/ the petitioner filed an application under Section, 451 Cr. PC in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akkra for giving the custody of the tractor and trolly to the petitioner. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 25th August, 1986 ordered the same to be given in the custody, of the petitioner on his furnishing security and 'Supurdginama'. In compliance of the said order the petitioner submitted security bond and 'Supurdginama' and an order was issued by the learned Magistrate to the SHO, Aklera to give delivery of the said tractor and trolly to the petitioner. When the petitioner went to the Police Station, Aklera with the order dated 25th August, 1986, for taking the delivery of the tractor and trolly, he was informed that the SHO, Aklera was not there and the petitioner was asked to come to the Police Station the next day. When the petitioner went to the Police Station, Aklera with the order dated 25th August, 1986, for taking the delivery of the tractor and trolly, he was informed that the SHO, Aklera was not there and the petitioner was asked to come to the Police Station the next day. The petitioner left the order of the learned Magistrate at the Police Station and came back. 5. It has been further alleged that when the petitioner again went to police station, Aklera on 26 81986, he was informed that tractor No. RJC 2638 was required in connection with some other case by the Police Station Talera of District Bundi and as such the same could not be given to the petitioner. How ever, the delivery of trolly was given to the petitioner. On coming to know that the tractor bad been seized by Police Station Talera, the petitioner went to Bundi and made enquiries in the matter. There upon the petitioner came to know that the Police Station, Talera had registered a case under Section 420 and 406, Indian Penal Code on the report of non-petitioner Harjendra Singh and the tractor No. RJC 2638 had been seized in connection with the investigation of the said case. The petitioner then submitted an application under Section 451 Cr. PC in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi for giving the custody of tractor to him during the investigation of the case. The case of the petitioner is that in the complaint filed by the non-petitioner Herjendra Singh, it has been admitted that he had sold the tractor in question in favour of Shri Abdul Gaffar for a consideration of Rs. 48,000/- nearly 11/2 years back before submitting of the complaint. Abdul Gaffar then sold the tractor to one Tulsiram for an amount of Rs. 28000/- by a document of sale dated 19th October, 1985 duly attested by the Notary, Kota. Abdul Gaffar gave the delivery and possession of the tractor to Tulsiram. Thereafter Tulsiram sold the said tractor on 20th December, 1985 in favour of Ramratan s/o Ghasilal Teli Resident of Churelia, Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawar for a sum of Rs. 35,000/. The sale in favour of Ramratan was benami and the actual purchaser was the petitioner Heeralal and this has been proved by an affidavit of Shri Ramratan before the Lower Court. 35,000/. The sale in favour of Ramratan was benami and the actual purchaser was the petitioner Heeralal and this has been proved by an affidavit of Shri Ramratan before the Lower Court. Thus, the petitioner Heralal was in lawful possession of the above tractor and he had no connection with the complaint lodged by Harjendra Singh against Abdul Gaffar and Tulsiram. 6. The petitioner has further alleged that after the sale of tractor in favour of the petitioner through Ramratan, Tulsiram also got the registration of the said tractor transferred in favour of the petitioner and since then the petitioner is also registered owner of the tractor and he alone in the above circumstances was entitled to get the custody of the tractor. 7. The case of Harjendra Singh is that this tractor was registered in his name and he along with his brother Kirpal Singh had purchased it after taking loan from the Bank of Baroda. Though, he had sold it for Rs. 48,000/- in favour of Abdul Gaffar about 11/2 year back but Abdul Gaffar had paid only Rs. 23,000/- and the balance amount was to be paid upto 15th October, 1985. There was a condition that if the balance amount would not be paid then the tractor would be returned back. Abdul Gaffar neither paid the balance amount nor returned the tractor even upto 15th June, 1986 and told the complainant that he had sold the tractor to some other person and would not return the tractor and the complainant can seize their tractor if he so liked. The case of Harjendra Singh is that Abdul Gaffar committed a criminal breach of trust and committed a fraud in selling the same to 3rd person. On the complaint filed by Harjendra Singh against Abdul Gaffar, the learned Trial Court sent the case for investigation to the Police Station Talera under Section 156(3) Cr.PC and in these circumstances the tractor has been rightly seized and Harjendra Singh is entitled to the custody of the tractor as he is the registered owner. 8. The case Of the Bank of Baroda is that it had given loan on hypothecation and an amount of Rs. 73,000/- is still outstanding against Harjendra Singh and Kripal Singh and till the amount of loan is not paid to the Bank they are entitied to the custody of the tractor. 9. 8. The case Of the Bank of Baroda is that it had given loan on hypothecation and an amount of Rs. 73,000/- is still outstanding against Harjendra Singh and Kripal Singh and till the amount of loan is not paid to the Bank they are entitied to the custody of the tractor. 9. The case of Harjendrasingh and the Bank of Baroda further is that Tulsi Ram got the registration of the tractor in his favour by submitting forged documents of sale and cancellation of hypothecation and as such the registration made in his favour was cancelled on 14th July, 1986. It has been further submitted that the petitioner Heera Lal also got the registration in his favour at Kota on 7th August, 1986 in a clandestine manner by concealing the above facts before the registration authority. It was further alleged that when the registration in favour of Tulsi Ram had itself been concealed on 14th July, 1986, there was no question of further registration in the name of Heera Lal on 7th August, 1986. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties before me. There is no manner of dispute that the tractor in question was in the possession of Abdul Gaffar since 11/2 year before the present complaint filed by Harjendra Singh against Abdul Gaffar. According to the allegations made in the complaint itself he had sold it for Rs. 48,000/-to Abdul Gaffar and had received an amount of Rs. 23,000/-. Harjendra Singh had no authority to transfer it in favour of Abdul Gaffar as it was already hypothecated with the Bank of Baroda and he had not repaid the loan taken from the Bank. Mr. K.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for Harjendra Singh was unable to justify such illegal transaction-made by Harjendra Singh in favour of Abdul Gaffar. This court in proceeding under Section 451, Cr.PC is not concerned to decide the title of the tractor but has to consider only as to who was in lawful possession of the tractor at the time of seizure and who is entitled to its custody. Abdul Gaffar is alleged to have sold the tractor for Rs. 23,000/- in favour of Tulsi Ram by a document of sale dated 19th Oct, 1985 duly attested by the Notary Kota. Abdul Gaffar is alleged to have sold the tractor for Rs. 23,000/- in favour of Tulsi Ram by a document of sale dated 19th Oct, 1985 duly attested by the Notary Kota. Thus the tractor came into possession of Tulsi Ram on 19th October, 1985 and thereafter, Tulsi Ram sold the tractor on 20th December, 1985 in favour of Ramratan for Rs. 35,000/- and gave possession of the tractor to petitioner Heera Lal as the sale in favour of Ramratan was Benami and the real purchaser was Heera Lal. Thus, since 20th December, 1985 the tractor was in possession of Heera Lal and he had nothing to do with any alleged criminal breach of trust or fraud committed by Abdul Gaffar in not paying the balance amount to Harjendra Singh. So far as the Bank is concerned it can seek its remedy against Harjendra Singn and Kripal Singh to whom the loan was given and take any further appropriate proceedings in the Civil Court for realising their amount. The contention of the petitioner Heera Lal is that be is a bona fide purchaser after paying fall consideration of Rs. 35,000/- to Tulsi Ram and be had seen the document of sale in favour of Tulsi Ram dated 19th October, 1985. I find force in the contention of the petitioner Heera Lal that he was in lawful possession of the tractor at the time when it was seized by the Police Station Talera, and no case has been registered against him under Section 406 or 420, Indian Penal Code. There is nothing on record to show that Heera Lal bad knowledge of the cancellation of registration of Tulsi Ram dated 14th July, 1986. On the basis of the sale made by Tulsi Ram in his favour he got the registration of the tractor in his favour by the registering authority at Kota on 7th August, 1986 and the said registration has not been cancelled so far. As already mentioned above so far as Harjendra Singh is concerned he has not come with clean hands and is guilty of making the transfer of the tractor in favour of Abdul Gaffar when the tractor was already hypothecated with the Back and be had not repaid the loan to the Bank. According to his own showing he had atleast received Rs. According to his own showing he had atleast received Rs. 23,000/- from Abdul Gaffar long back but did not care to repay the amount to the Bank. So far as the Bark is concerned it may hare its remedy in the Civil Courts but it has no right to claim custody of the tractor in these criminal proceedings instituted an FIR lodged by Harjendra Singh against Abdul Gaffar. 11. In view of the above circumstances I am clearly of the view that during the pendency of the case, the petitioner Heera Lal is alone entitled to the custody of the tractor in question. In the facts and circumstances of the case I deem it proper that the tractor No. RJC 2638 should be handed over to the petitioner Heera Lal on his furnishing a surety bond in the sum of Rs. 75,000/- and a Supurdginama to the satisfaction of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, to the effect that the tractor in question would be produced before the Court as and when called upon to do so.Ordered Accordingly. *******