( 1. ) THIS revision under Section 439 of the Criminal P. C. is against the order, dated, 24. 9. 1984, passed by Shri S. R. Ghanekar, Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, in criminal revision No. 45 of 1964, upholding the order, dated 4. 6. 1964, passed by Shri N. L. Shrivastava, Additional District Magistrate, Shajapur in Misc. Criminal Cases Nos. 13, 14 and 15 of 1954 directing a seized bus to be returned to the permit holders, that is, Mst. Khatoonbi and her daughters, Fehmada Nahid, Firoza Khatoon and Gariba Sultana under Section 523, Criminal P. C.

( 2. ) A permit for running a bus stands in the name of respondents 1 to 3 and 6. As the sixth respondent is a pardanashin woman and the other permit holders are all her daughters either major or minor, there was an arrangement between the sixth respondent purporting to act for herself and her minor daughters on the one hand and the present petitioner on the other hand about running of the bus service From the documents on record, it is clear that the petitioner has been actually managing the bus service on behalf of the permit holders. There are further documents to show that the petitioner has spent money for acquisition of the bus which had been purchased from M/s Charatsingh and Co. It appears that the said company had to recover some amount towards the price of the bus. Permit had been issued in favour of Mst. Khatoonbi on 9. 2. 1962 for running a passenger bus on Bhopal-Shujalpur route.

( 3. ) ON a report of a cognisable of offence alleged to have been committed, the bus was seized from the possession of the petitioner on 9. 4. 1984. Thereupon, the petitioner and the permit-holders, as also the financier M/s Charat Singh and Co. filed applications under Section 516a of the Criminal P. C. , for Being delivered possession of the bus. No prosecution was ultimately launched against the petitioner in respect of an alleged cognizable offence. The question, therefore, arose as to who was best entitled to the possession of the bus under Section 523, Criminal P. C. The trial Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge upheld the claim of the permit holders to be restored to possession of the bus. Hence the present revision. At this stage, it might be noted that M/s Charat singh and Co. nave not filed any revision against the order of the criminal Court; but have filed a civil suit and have also secured an order from the Court of Sub Judge Class I, Delhi in civil suit No. 191 of 1984 for appointment of a receiver in connection with the disputed bus, It was from that point of view that the learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the order of the trial Magistrate that the order of returning the bus to the permit holders would be subject to compliance by them with the order of the Sub-Judge Class Delhi regarding appointment of a receiver.

( 4. ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner invited attention to cases under Section 517, Criminal P. C. and urged that the principle to be followed in a case covered by Section 523, Criminal P. C. will be the same. In this connection, attention was invited to the observations of a Division Bench consisting of Rankin C. J. and Costello J. in Brojendra Chandra Dev v. K. S. Sama AIR 1931 Cal 455. The learned Judges observed that when there was no case made out, the property ought to be handed over to one who had possession of it.

( 5. ) IN Lakshmichand Rajmal v. Gopikisan Balmukund ILR 60 Bom 183 : AIR 1936 Bom 171, a Division Bench presided over by Beaumont C. J. and Macklin J. laid down that under Section 523, Criminal P. C. what the Magistrate has to consider is who is entitled to possession of the property, which has been seized by the police. Where it is proved that the person from whose possession the property was seized came by it dishonestly, the Magistrate may have to consider the question of title in order to determine the best right to possession. But where it appears that the police have seized property from a person who