JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the order dated 15.7.1996 passed by Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Hindoli Distt. Bundi by which he rejected the application of the petitioner moved Under Sections 451 and 457 Cr. P.C. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned PP as well as learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2. 3. In brief, Mangilal reported to police station Hindoli that he took loan from Bank of Baroda, Bundi in order to purchase a tractor-HMT bearing RJG-7773 along with trolley. The tractor and trolley were in possession of Mangilal and were standing in his house. According to the FIR, petitioner took away the tractor and trolley. At that time, he was not in his house and had gone to his field. When he returned, it was Nanda who told him that his tractor and trolley were taken away by the petitioner. He lodged the report on 24.5.96 while the incident had taken place on 23.5.1996. A case Under Section 379 Indian Penal Code was registered and during the investigation the said tractor and trolley were seized from the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested and was in custody. During the period, Mangilal submitted an application Under Sections 451 and 457 Cr. P.C. before the learned Magistrate and the Magistrate passed an order on 9.7.1996. to release the tractor and trolley to Mangilal. 4. After his release on bail, the petitioner moved an application Under Sections 451 and 457 Cr. P.C. on 9.7.1996 but the petition was decided on 15.7.1996 and was rejected. The petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court under extra-ordinary powers Under Section 482 Cr. P.C. without first going to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in revision. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Anx. 1, affidavit, is very important which was filed by Mangilal in some case before the Judicial Magistrate, Bijolia in relation to FIR No. 150/93 on 9.9.1993 wherein he admitted that the tractor and trolley belonged to Jawarilal. He also admitted that he had not spent even as single paisa in order to purchase these two vehicles. He admitted that in the registration certificate his name was entered only because a loan was advanced by the Bank Because he was himself having agricultural land which was mortgaged to the bank. 6. He also admitted that he had not spent even as single paisa in order to purchase these two vehicles. He admitted that in the registration certificate his name was entered only because a loan was advanced by the Bank Because he was himself having agricultural land which was mortgaged to the bank. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of this affidavit, since the petitioner was the owner of the two vehicles, it was he who was entitled for their interim custody. Learned Counsel also submitted that since the petitioner was in jail he could not apply for interim custody of the vehicles but Mangilal had applied for interim custody of the vehicles and he could not oppose it before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, it is prayed that the order of the learned Magistrate should be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mangilal has submitted that the registration certificate of the vehicles is in the name of Mangilal, on the date of incident the vehicles were in possession of Mangilal and from whose custody the tractor and trolley were taken away but the petitioner, therefore, he was entitled for the interim custody of these two vehicles. He has submitted that the court has to be very slow and circumspect to exercise powers Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He has supported the older of the learned Magistrate-saying that it was an order of interim custody and the order dated 9.7.1996 by which the Magistrate ordered to deliver the articles to Mangilal has not been challenged, therefore, the petition should be dismissed. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited 1985 RCC 297, Bonne Singh v. State of Rajasthan wherein there was a sale agreement of vehicle between A & B and the vehicle was in possession of B. He had not paid instalments under agreement of sale. The Magistrate had directed the delivery of vehicle to A. It was held that the delivery of the vehicle to A cannot be maintained. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on 1990 RCC 47, Chandi Dan v. State wherein the facts were that the registration and permit were in the name of SN. There was a clause in agreement. The Magistrate had directed the delivery of vehicle to A. It was held that the delivery of the vehicle to A cannot be maintained. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relied on 1990 RCC 47, Chandi Dan v. State wherein the facts were that the registration and permit were in the name of SN. There was a clause in agreement. The petitioner was in lawful possession of the vehicle and it was held that the petitioner was entitled to get the delivery of the vehicle on supardginama. Reliance has also been placed on 1986 RCC 77, Nandlal v. State wherein a camel and cart were sold for consideration but the payment of balance of sale price was not made by the accused. A report was lodged that the accused had committed theft of the camel and cart. The property was seized by the police from the possession of the accused. It was held that it was he who was entitled for possession of camel and cart Under Section 457 Cr. P.C. 9. In the case in hand though there is an affidavit of Mangilal given some time in the year 1993, there is no agreement between the parties as to how the amount was to be paid by Jawarilal. Even of the amount was paid. It appears that some quarrel took place between the parties later on and the tractor and trolley were in possession of Mangilal on the date of occurrence. The petitioner had not challenged it in any court. He removed them from the possession of Mangilal and, therefore, a FIR was lodged and the case registered against him. A mere recovery from his possession would not entitle him for the possession. After all it is an interim custody and the final order is yet to be passed by the Magistrate after trial of the case. 10. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 9.7.1996 and by saying that by that date the petitioner was in jail, he cannot gain any sympathy on this ground. In my view the order of the learned Magistrate is correct and no interference is required. 11. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******