JUDGMENT 1. - The facts giving rise to this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in brief are that one tractor No. HR 05/C-2675 (Chasis No. A-86699 and Engine No. i 5073) was seized by the police from the possession of the petitioner Shri Munna Lal on account of non possession of some relevant documents of the vehicle under Section 207, Motor Vehicles Act. Shri Munna Lal pleaded guilty on 10.7.2000. In the meantime, two applications for possession of this tractor-one by Shri Munna Lal and the other by Shri Nanika, non-petitioner No.2 were filed in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dholpur. After hearing the learned Magistrate in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.592/99 gave this tractor on Supurdgenama of Rs.3 lacks to Shri Nanika vide order dated 10.7.2000. Criminal Revision No.87/2000 filed by Shri Munna Lal was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur. vide order dated 12.10.2000. Hence, this petition. 2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he purchased this tractor from one Balveer Singh on 20.10,1994 vide one sale letter, though the registration could not be transferred in favour of the petitioner and secondly, this tractor was seized by the police from the possession of the petitioner, hence, possession of the tractor should have been delivered to the petitioner. It was next argued that both the courts below delivered this tractor to the non-petitioner No.2 deciding the title of this tractor, while under Section 452 Cr. P.C. on title could not have been decided. Reliance has been placed on (1998) 8 SCC 772. wherein it has been held by Hon'ble the Apex Court that the High Court has separate powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and the court has to distinguish its separate powers under Section 397 as also under Section 482 Cr. P.C. and as such proceedings are open to scrutiny by the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. This judgment is cited in reply to the arguments of learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 that since the revision was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, this petition is not maintainable. P.C. and as such proceedings are open to scrutiny by the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. This judgment is cited in reply to the arguments of learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 that since the revision was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, this petition is not maintainable. Another judgment relied upon is 1996 WLC (Rai) UC 479, wherein it is held by Rajasthan High Court that though the petitioner was not registered owner of the truck seized under Section 207 M. V. Act, the petitioner otherwise in lawful possession of the vehicle is entitled to possession at the time of seizure of the vehicle leaving title to be decided by the civil court. Similar view has been taken by this Court in RCC 1998 602. In yet another judgment reported in 1997 Cri. L.R. (Raj.)23. it is held by this court that the Magistrate had no power to go into the question of title while giving the possession of the tractor seized. In RLW 1999(2) Raj.799, it was held that registration of vehicle is not a condition precedent for transferring its ownership to the transferee and the vehicle can be delivered to the real owner. Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in, 2001 Cri LJ 3024. 3. Per contra learned counsel for the non-petitioner No.2 contended that there is no illegality in the orders passed by both the courts below and it was necessary to decide under Section 452 Cr. P.C. that who was entitled to possession of the vehicle and Shri Nanika purchased this vehicle from the registered owner and the order of the learned Magistrate was passed after inquiry. 4. I have considered the rival submissions and in considered opinion of this court, both the courts below did not commit any illegality. According to the order of the learned Magistrate, the original owner of this tractor was Shri Balbeer Singh, who sold it to one Shri Rambabu and Shri Rambabu sold it to non-petitioner No.2 Shri Nanka and the registration of this tractor is in the name of Shri Nanka and this fact was verified by-district Transport Officer, Dholpur. The petitioner could not explain as to why he could not get the vehicle transferred in his name from 1994 to 1999 and according to the orders of both the courts below no tax was paid by the petitioner. The petitioner could not explain as to why he could not get the vehicle transferred in his name from 1994 to 1999 and according to the orders of both the courts below no tax was paid by the petitioner. Therefore, the courts below rightly held that the petitioner Shri Munna Lal could not show as to how he came into lawful possession of this vehicle. It is also important to mention here that one complaint for this tractor filed by Shri Munna Lal is also pending in the court of learned C.J.M. Dholpur. 5. In view of this entire discussion, there is no merit in this petition. Hence, it is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******