JUDGMENT 1. - The facts, giving rise to this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code') are as under:- 2. A case under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, was registered at Police Station-Brahmpuri, Jaipur, at the instance of the petitioner, stating that he is registered owner of Truck No. RNG 2894 (the vehicle in question) and that he had given the vehicle in question, to the respondent No. 2, Jagdish, on hire basis and the latter had not paid the hire-money and had also not returned the vehicle in question. On the basis of their FIR, the vehicle in question was taken into possession by the police, from the custody of the respondent No. 2, Jagdish. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 filed applications under Section 457 of the Code, each praying that the vehicle in question be given to him on 'Superdginama. The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide the impugned order dated 22.6.95, has dismissed the applications of the applicant as well as of the respondent No. 2, on the ground that it is only after the evidence of the parties, is recorded that it can be ascertained as to who is the owner of the vehicle it question and till then, the same cannot be given on 'superdginama' to the either of them. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioner in the FIR, had mentioned that he had given the vehicle in question on hire, to the respondent No. 2 and that the possession of the respondent No. 2 in respect of this vehicle, was lawful. Whether or not the respondent No. 2 had paid the hire-money, is not a question, which is to be decided for the purposes of the present proceedings. Under Section 457 of the Code, a Judicial Magistrate has no power to go into the question of title of the property i.e. the vehicle in question, and he has only to decide as to who is entitled to the possession thereof. Under Section 457 of the Code, a Judicial Magistrate has no power to go into the question of title of the property i.e. the vehicle in question, and he has only to decide as to who is entitled to the possession thereof. It is now well-settled and I have held in many cases that a person, from whose possession the property is taken, is the person, entitled to the possession thereof, unless he can be shown to have committed an offence in respect of the same property. As noted above, the respondent No. 2 was in lawful possession of the vehicle in question and the said vehicle was taken into possession from the respondent No. 2. It appears that the learned Magistrate, without going into the provisions of Section 457 of the Code, held that the vehicle in question cannot be given on 'Supardginama, without deciding as to who is the owner thereof and without understanding that a criminal court has no power to go into the question of title. 5. Once it is found, as in this case, that the respondent No. 2-was in lawful possession of the vehicle in question and possession thereof was taken from him there is no reason for not giving the vehicle in question, to the said respondent. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the respondents No. 2 has filed a revision petition, which is pending before the court of sessions and has so far not been decided. 7. However, once the matter is brought to this Court under Section 482 of the Code, an appropriate order can be passed, even if the petition on behalf of the respondent No. 2, is not before this Court and the matter has been brought to the Court, by the petitioner, who has filed the present petition. 8. Consequently, I set aside the impugned order dated 22.6.95, passed by the Darned Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Case No. 128/95 and dire t that the vehicle in question should be given to the respondent No. 2, on 'Supardginama', on his executing a bond in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-, undertaking to produce it in court as and when directed to do so. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.Petitioner disposed of. *******