JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code are as under:- Motor truck registration No. RSB 5718, is registered in the name of petitioner, who had purchased it from its previous owner Shri Jagdish Prasad. According to the record of transport authority, the truck is with the petitioner under a hire purchase agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No. 2. Because of certain earlier disputes, the police had taker. possession of the truck which was given by the Court on supurdari to the petitioner in November 1986. On 19.4.89 the petitioner filed a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate stating that while he was driving the truck, respondents No. 2 to 4 stopped him and took forcible possession thereof from him. Learned Judicial Magistrate sent the matter to police for enquiry and the police found the truck standing on the road side and took it into possession. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 2 moved applications for getting the truck in question on supurdari. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class No. 3 Jaipur City, Jaipur after hearing the learned counsel for parties allowed the application of respondent No. 2 and dismissed the application moved by the petitioner for getting truck on supurdari. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Essential Commodities Act, Jaipur vide order dated 28.8.91 on the ground that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was an inter-locutary order and as such he could not hear the revision against it. The petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition. 2. I have heard Shri Garg, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Anwar Ahmad the learned counsel for respondent No.3 and 4 and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. None cared to appear on behalf of respondent No. 5 despite service and although initially respondent No. 2 was represented by a learned counsel but none appeared on his behalf either on 18.5.94 when the case was taken up or today and as such, I did not have the advantage of hearing any one on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 5. 3. 3. The record shows that the learned Judicial Magistrate allowed the application of respondent No. 2 on the ground that the had financed the truck and had to recover certain amount from the petitioner and that according to the agreement between the parties, he could take possession of the truck in case the payment had not been made. The powers to dispose of the property by a criminal court on the property being seized, are in Section 457 of the Code which reads as under: "457. Procedure by police upon seizure of property.-(1) Whenever the seizure of property by any police is reported to Magistrate under the provisions of this Code and such property is not produced before a criminal court during an inquiry or 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 person 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 six months from the date of such proclamation." 4. A Magistrate is not a Civil Court and cannot decide the disputes about the title to the property or the rights therein and the above said provision clearly shows that the scope of enquiry to be made by a Magistrate is about the person who is entitled to the possession of the property in question. In my view, the person, from whose possession the property was seized and who is not found to have committed any offence such as would render his possession unlawful, is the person entitled to its possession. My view finds support from the decision in case M/s. Purshottam Das Banarsidas v. State, AIR 1952 Allahabad 470 . 5. In my view, the person, from whose possession the property was seized and who is not found to have committed any offence such as would render his possession unlawful, is the person entitled to its possession. My view finds support from the decision in case M/s. Purshottam Das Banarsidas v. State, AIR 1952 Allahabad 470 . 5. The facts show that the petitioner was in possession of the truck by virtue of a hire purchase agreement and under an order of supurdari passed by a competent court, when he was forcibly dis-possessed by respondents No. 2 to 4 and when the petitioner made the complaint the truck as abandoned by the road-side from where the police had taken it in possession. Respondent No. 2, against whom the complaint of forcible dis-possession had been lodged, could not be said to be the person whose possession would be lawful and since the petitioner was in lawful possession of the truck in question before he was forcibly dis-possessed, he is the one who is entitled to the possession of the truck in question within the meaning of Section 457 of the Code. 6. The learned Judicial Magistrate did not take this aspect of the matter into consideration and, therefore, erred in passing the order dismissing the application of petitioner and allowing the one filed by respondent No. 2. 7. For the above said reasons I accept this petition, set aside the impugned orders passed by the learned courts below and direct the learned Judicial Magistrate to take back the possession of the truck in question from respondent No. 2 and restore its possession to the petitioner without any delay. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petition Accepted. *******