JUDGMENT This revision is filed challenging the order of the learned C.J .M. Durg dated 4.4.1994 with regard to the interim custody of the truck bearing No. MBT 9007 which is confirmed by the learned IVth Addl. Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Revision No. 76/94. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the truck was in the possession of the applicant; that all instalments were paid by the applicant by 30th January 1991, that the applicant has obtained the form required for transfer of vehicle in his name; that as the engine of the truck needed repairs the applicant has taken an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the non-applicant and started repaying the loan at Rs. 3,000/- per month as per Annexures F-1 to F-10 and that the contention of the non-applicant that the truck was seized from his possession is not correct. The learned counsel for the applicant, therefore, argued that since the truck belongs to the applicant and he was forcibly dispossessed, the possession should be restored to him by delivering interim custody of the truck during trial of the criminal case. The learned counsel for the non-applicant, on the other hand, argued that there is no allegation that the truck was got registered in the name of the non-applicant by playing fraud, that the plea that the applicant took loan of Rs. 30,000/- from the non-applicant by pledging the truck with the non-applicant is not evidenced by any document; that even assuming that Annexure F-1 to F-10 are true, they do not show that the payments were made in discharge of the loan amount; that interim custody of the truck was given to the non-applicant by order of the Railway Magistrate, Raipur and that the above fact negatives the contention of the applicant that possession of the truck was taken from him. Admittedly the truck as on today stands registered in the name of the non-applicant. There is no material placed on record to establish that the possession of the truck was taken from the applicant. The normal rule for delivering interim custody during the pendency of the criminal case is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stood registered as owner. There is no material placed on record to establish that the possession of the truck was taken from the applicant. The normal rule for delivering interim custody during the pendency of the criminal case is the person in whose name the motor vehicle stood registered as owner. In the absence of proof that the custody of the truck in question was with the applicant on the date of its seizure, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Courts below directing interim custody of the truck being given to the non-applicant during pendency of the criminal case. The order passed by the Courts below is only in the nature of an order of interim custody pending decision of the criminal case, with regard to the custody to be passed under section 457 Cr.P.C. while disposing of the criminal case. The order in revision does not suffer from illegality or impropriety justifying interference in the revision. The criminal revision is, therefore, dismissed.