S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) DELIVERING of a motor cycle seized in respect of which as offence is under investigation is subject matter of consideration in this application u/s. 482, Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) AFTER seizure of the motor cycle which was not produced in Court. petitioner who is informant and accused NO. 2 each filed application for delivery of the same. Considering the claims which are counter to each other, trial court directed that the same cannot be delivered in favour of either. Both of them filed revisions before the learned Sessions Judge who has directed delivery of the motor cycle in favour of accused No. 2 in whose name the registration under the Motor Vehicles Act has been effected. This is grievance of petitioner. ( 3 ) U/s. 457, Cr. P. C. when seizure of property is reported to a Magistrate and such property is not produced before a criminal court during enquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit for disposal of the property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to possession thereof. If such person cannot be ascertained, he may pass such order respecting custody and production of the property. ( 4 ) IN ILR (1977) 2 Cut 188 (M. S. Jaggi v. Subaschandra Mohapatra), it has been held that an accused is not entitled to property until he has cleared himself of the accusation against him. This principle is equally applicable in case of seizure of a motor vehicle even if accused happens to be the registered owner. Till he is cleared of the accusation against him the motor vehicle cannot be delivered to him in exercise of power u/s. 457, Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) IN (1989) 2 OLR 89 Pramod Kumar Mukharjee v. State, considering all the decisions both reported and unreported, I had observed that although power u/s. 457, Cr. P. C. can be exercised when investigation is in progress, there being no enquiry or trial by then Magistrate cannot come to the conclusion that the property would not be necessary in any inquiry or trial and as such he is not to deliver the property to the person entitled but can pass an order for interim custody as he thinks fit. In (1988) 66 Cut LT 74 Promod Kumar Mukherjee v. Gouramava Mukherjee discretion was used by directing to put user of the buses seized to auction confined to parties since investigation was in progress. When charge sheet is submitted inquiry or trial commences and at that stage Magistrate can exercise the discretion to deliver the property seized u/s. 457, Cr. P. C. to the person entitled but it cannot be delivered to the accused even if he is the registered owner. When there is a claim for delivery of possession of the vehicle by a registered owner who is not an accused, mere fact of registration is not sine qua non for delivery of the motor vehicle to him. Other materials are to be taken into consideration along with the fact of registration of the vehicle. This principle should always be remembered while exercising power for disposal of property seized u/s. 457, Cr. P. C. and various decisions rendered by this Court are to be read in this light. When vehicles have been delivered to registered owners, it should be held that in absence of any better weighty material, registration of the vehicle indicated to be the evidence of the person being entitled to possession. It should always be remembered that title is not to be adjudicated by the Magistrate. ( 6 ) IN this case investigation was in progress. Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge was not justified to direct delivery of the motor cycle to the accused (opposite party No. 2 ). Accordingly, order in revision is liable to be set aside. Learned Magistrate is directed to consider the two applications for custody of motor vehicle one by the petitioner and the other by opposite party No. 2 afresh. Since there is no challenge to the T. V. set, the order has become final. Both accused No. 2 and petitioner shall be given opportunity to bring further materials to record for enabling the learned Magistrate to come to a conclusion with regard to entitlement to the motor cycle seized or to pass any other order as deemed proper in accordance with law. ( 7 ) IN the result, application is allowed. No costs. Learned Magistrate is directed to complete the enquiry by end of April, 1991. Petition allowed.