JUDGMENT This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 2.4.93 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur in unregistered Misc. Criminal Case party being H.L. Sabbarbal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, whereby he passed an order for release of the tanker containing furnace oil to the non-applicant No. 1, the owner of the transport company. On 15.3.93 a tanker of Non-applicant No. 1 proceeded with furnace oil from Vishakhapattanam to Modi Cement at Raipur, while the furnace oil was being delivered to the Modi Cement at Raipur it was found that the same was mixed with water. The matter was reported to the police who arrested the non-applicant No. 1 and he confessed that he had delivered the oil to the applicant and one Rituraj Industries but nothing was found in the Rituraj Industries, Raipur, but 11,000 litres oil and seized from the store of the applicant. The applicant and non-applicant No. 1 adversely claimed release of the furnace oil to them. The Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing both the parties passed an order for delivery of the furnace oil to the non-applicant No. 1 on Supratnama. Shri S.L. Kochar, learned counsel for the applicant, has contended that neither the Indian Oil Corporation nor the Modi Cement has claimed the seized furnace oil. Admittedly, furnace oil was seized from the possession of the applicant, therefore, one furnace oil should have been released to the applicant and not to the non-applicant No. 1, who being a mere transporter had no right over the seized furnace oil, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is well settled that in a case where an article is seized from the possession of a person, the article should be released to the person from whose possession the article is seized, when there is no other claimant of the article. Admittedly, in this case no person other than the applicant has claimed to be the owner of the seized furnace oil. As the furnace oil was seized from the possession of the applicant the same should have been released to the applicant and not to the non-applicant No. 1, who is a mere transporter. The impugned order is, therefore, bad in law. It is set aside and in the result the petition is allowed.