K. L. ISSRANI, J. ( 1 ) THE present petition is under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 3-2-1990, passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Criminal Revision No. 181 of 1989, arising out of the order dated 22-12-1989, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhopal. ( 2 ) THE police Shajahanabad, Bhopal, seized the Mini Bus No. CIC 744 under section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the possession of the non-applicant No. 1 Bhagwati Prasad on 4-12-1989. The applicant Shamsul Hasan as well as the non-applicant No. 1 Bhagwati Prasad moved their applications for custody of the bus. The trial Magistrate allowed the application of the non-applicant No. 1 and rejected the application of the applicant. The applicant filed a revision petition against the said order but was unsuccessful. The present petition has, therefore, been filed by the applicant. ( 3 ) THE non-applicant No. 1 had purchased this Mini Bus after getting loan from the Bank and was in its possession since then. He is also the registered owner of the Bus. According to the applicant, the non-applicant No. 1 had agreed to sell the Bus to him for a consideration of Rs. 1,13,000/ -. After accepting Rs. 20,000/- towards the sale amount, it is said that the vehicle was handed over in possession of the applicant. Thereafter, according to the applicant, he has spent Rs. 40,000/- on repairs of the Bus. But the non-applicant No. 1 forcibly took away the Bus from the possession of the applicant. The applicant, therefore, lodged a report with the police. The police has registered an offence under section 420, I. P. C. against the non-applicant No. 1 and his two brothers. According to the applicant, there is prima facie case in his favour and he is entitled to have possession of the Bus: The learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the following rulings; Bhagwanlal v. Govind Prasat, A. S. S. Ahmed Sahib v. Commissioner of Police, Madras and another, and M/s. Purshottam Das Banarsidas v. State through Harshad Rai Natwarlal. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 submits that the non-applicant No. 1 is the owner of the Bus. The Bus is registered in his name. His name still continues in the R. T. O. records. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the non-applicant No. 1 submits that the non-applicant No. 1 is the owner of the Bus. The Bus is registered in his name. His name still continues in the R. T. O. records. The non- applicant No. 1 has denied to have received any payment under the agreement. ( 5 ) COPY of the alleged agreement was produced before the lower revisional Court, who found that though it was notarised by a Notary, but it was not signed by the non-applicant No. 1. No receipt for Rs. 20,000/- alleged to have been paid by the applicant to the Non-applicant No. 1 was filed or produced before the Court. The vehicle continues to be registered in the name of the non-applicant No. 1 alone. Though the vehicle is hypothecated with the Bank, but the Bank is not a party to the alleged agreement of sale. ( 6 ) IN the case in which loan is advanced by a Bank, the vehicle is always registered in the joint name of the Bank as well as the lonee. It is the non-applicant No. 1 only who has taken the loan advance from the Bank. Admittedly, the nonapplicant No. 1 is the registered owner and was in possession of the vehicle. The vehicle has also been seized from his possession but the submission of the applicant is that it was in his possession on the strength of the alleged agreement to sell. It is the non-applicant No. 1 who is liable to instalments of the Bank and not the applicant as no such consent was obtained from the Bank. The alleged agreement of sale is not signed by the nonapplicant No. 1. If it is deemed to be so, then such an agreement is not legal, valid and binding without the consent of the Bank. Therefore, it is the non-applicant No. 1 who is the registered owner of the vehicle. He is the person, who is responsible for breach of the obligations under the Motor Vehicles Act also. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that possession on the date of seizure or otherwise is the true criterion for return of the vehicle pending decision of the criminal case. He is the person, who is responsible for breach of the obligations under the Motor Vehicles Act also. It is, therefore, not correct to contend that possession on the date of seizure or otherwise is the true criterion for return of the vehicle pending decision of the criminal case. The applicant might have agreed to purchase the vehicle but has not yet got it transferred in his name and was not responsible for the offence committed in regard to the vehicle. Therefore, he cannot be said to be lawful owner or legally entitled to have the custody of the vehicle. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are distinguishable. In Bhagwanlal v. Govind Prasad (supra) it was a case of hire-purchase and the power of attorney was executed in favour of applicant, who had only to make payment of the remaining instalments. This is not I the case here. There is no legal and valid agreement in existence. ( 7 ) IN M/s. Purshottam Das Banarsidas v. State through Harshad Rai Natwarlal (supra) it has been laid down that the rule to be applied is that property taken under the authority of the law for a particular purpose should, on the fulfillment of that purpose, go back to the custody from whence it was taken. In the present case, the Bus was seized from the custody of the non-applicant No. 1. There is no hope that the applicant may succeed on the strength of the agreement, which is not at all signed by the non-applicant No. 1 and at present there is no proof of any part payment K In A. S. S. Ahmed Sahib v. Commissioner of Police, Madras and another (supra) it has been held that a person may be an unlawful possession at the time it was seized, though he has not committed the offence, and in that circumstances it cannot be said that he is entitled to possession. The expression entitled to possession is the sine qua non for the delivery of property. ( 8 ) AS observed above, possession is not the only criteria, but the consideration of ownership is also be prima facie seen while ordering delivery of the vehicle on Supratnama. Both the Courts below have concurrently found the non-applicant No. 1 to be entitled to such interim custody. ( 8 ) AS observed above, possession is not the only criteria, but the consideration of ownership is also be prima facie seen while ordering delivery of the vehicle on Supratnama. Both the Courts below have concurrently found the non-applicant No. 1 to be entitled to such interim custody. The custody given to the non-applicant No. 1 on Supratnama which is interim only and no interference under the provisions of section 482, Cr. P. C. is called for in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 9 ) THEREFORE, the present petition has no merit. It is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .