Judgment L.P.N.SHAHDEO, J. 1. This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 23.3.1985 passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chas, by which the two buses bearing numbers W.G.W. 287 and B.H.N. 6322 have been released in favour of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. Opposite party No. 3 is United Motor Works Company Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its Head Office at Calcutta. 2. It is claimed by the petitioner that opposite party No. 3 was allotted a bus permit by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, for plying a bus service from Calcutta to Purulia and return, on and from 15.2.1972 for a period of five years expiring on 14.2.1977. On getting that permit, it is claimed that opposite party No. 3 expressed his inability to invest for purchasing a vehicle for returning the bus in that route and requested the petitioner who was known to each other closely, to run the bus in respect of that route permit from Calcutta to Purulia and in consequence thereof an agreement was entered into on 11.2.1977 between the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 and this agreement, it is claimed, is not denied. It is claimed that two buses were given in garrage for repair and thereafter it is claimed that the two buses indicated above were stealthily removed from that garrage on 29.8.1984 for which a first information report was lodged alleging that these buses were missing and were removed by opposite party No. 3. In consequence of that first information report the aforesaid two buses were seized on 1.6.1984 and after seizure of those buses an application was filed in the court for release of the buses. 3. Opposite party No. 2 appeared and opposed the claim for release of the buses claiming that he had purchased those buses and in fact he is the rightful owner of those buses which were, in terms of the agreement, given to opposite party No. 3 only for the purpose of plying in view of the permit standing in his name in that route. Opposite party No. 2 produced sale letter written by opposite party No. 3 to transfer the buses showing transfer of the buses to opposite party No. 2. It was dated 16.5.1984. 4. Opposite party No. 2 produced sale letter written by opposite party No. 3 to transfer the buses showing transfer of the buses to opposite party No. 2. It was dated 16.5.1984. 4. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the objection raised by both the parties ultimately by the impugned order released the two buses in favour of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and feeling aggrieved from that order this revision has been preferred. 5. Mr. M.M. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the buses and they were purchased by him but since the permit was standing in the name of opposite party No. 3, the buses were purchased in his name and were running in that route and, therefore, those buses should not be released to the opposite parties and should have been released to the petitioner who is the rightful owner of those buses. On the other hand, Mr. Tapan Sen, learned Counsel for the opposite parties relying on a ruling in the case of Chadra Shekhar Jha V/s. State of Bihar and Anr., 1982 0 BBCJ 604 , submitted that the Magistrate had passed the rightful order and he had no option than to release the bus in whose name owner book stands and it was also submitted that it is beyond the scope of the Coda of Criminal Procedure to investigate and decide the question as to who has right to the bus. 6. In this case a counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 3. It is the admitted position in this case that the two buses seized on 1.6.1984 are in the name of opposite party No. 3. Therefore, those two buses in whose name the papers stood was entitled to have possession of those buses. According to the aforesaid ruling it was held that the motor vehicle seized by the police must be released to the owner of the motor vehicle and the owner is one in whose name registration and other papers connecting the vehicle stood. The Magistate cannot investigate as to who is the real owner. 7. In this case, admittedly the two buses were standing in the name of opposite party No. 3. The Magistate cannot investigate as to who is the real owner. 7. In this case, admittedly the two buses were standing in the name of opposite party No. 3. Therefore, the Magistrate had no option than to release the buses seized in favour of opposite party No. 3 by interim order until the criminal case is finally disposed of. It appears that the opposite party No. 3 had sold these buses to opposite party No. 2 on 1.10.1984. Therefore, whether the buses are released in favour of opposite party No 2 or opposite party No. 3 is not the material consequence in this case. According to the aforesaid ruling the buses are required to be released to opposite party No. 3 and opposite party No. 3 has admitted that he has transferred one bus, namely, W.G.W. 287, to opposite party No. 2 of course subsequently on 13.10.1984. Therefore, the interim order passed by the learned Magistrate releasing the buses in favour of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not appear to be contrary to law or in any way erroneous. 8. Who has the right to claim those buses cannot be investigated in a Criminal Court and type of a civil dispute pertains to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and is beyond the competence of a Criminal Court. In this revision although the learned Counsel has taken to the evidence but the question of facts is not so material to be determined in this case. The question of facts and statements made in this application can only be considered and appreciated before the trial Court and not in this revision. 9. On consideration of all the materials and the points raised I am satisfied that the order passed by the court below is in accordance with the law and requires no interference. 10. In the result, I find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed.