( 1. ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 5-10-1988 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), indore in Cri. Case No. 3291 of 1988 whereby under Section 451 of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code) interim custody of the Maruti car in question has been ordered to be handed over to Subhash Gupta, the non-applicant No. 2.

( 2. ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to the revision petition are these. On the basis of the written report dated 28-8-1986 lodged with the police by the petitioner, pankaj Mehta, the non-applicant No. 2 Subhash Gupta has been prosecuted in respect of offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Smt. Pratima, the sister of the petitioner Pankaj Mehta was married to Narendra gupta in the year 1984. The non-applicant No. 2 Subhash Gupta is the elder brother of the said Narendra. Narendra, and his wife Pratima reside in America and the non-applicant No. 2 Subhash resides in America as well as in India.

( 3. ) ACCORDING to the case set-up by the petitioner, he needed a Maruti car for his use. As payment in dollars entitles the intending purchaser to priority, he contacted Narendra Gupta who advanced dollars equivalent to Rs. 10,000/-and directed the dealer in India to register a Maruti car in the name of Pankaj. Subsequently Subhash Gupta paid 5600 dollars towards the balance of the price of the car. The informant Pankaj has re-paid Narendra by depositing in August 1984 Rs. 10,000/- in Indian currency in the account of the former and the non-applicant No. 2 Subhash received back 5600 dollars in December 1984 from Smt. Pratima, the petitioners sister.

( 4. ) IT was on the basis of the authority-letter from the petitioner that the non-applicant No. 2 obtained delivery of the Maruti car in March 1985. It remained with the petitioner only for a few days at Indore and then at the request of the non-applicant No. 2 it was handed over to the latter for use at Indore. However, the non-applicant No. 2 without informing the petitioner took away the vehicle to delhi in March 1985 itself.

( 5. ) THE petitioner several times demanded back the car from the non-applicant No. 2 but the latter avoided returning it. No firm action could be taken in the matter because of the relationship between the parties.

Somewhere in April 1986, the relations between Pratima and Narendra in America became strained and the petitioners father Pannalal, Advocate, Indore had gone to America in order to settle the dispute between them. It was after consulting his father that the petitioner on 28-8-1986 lodged the written report with the police.

( 6. ) RELYING on the decision in Ramprakashs case, 1978 MPJJ SN 52 learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner admittedly being the registered owner of the vehicle is entitled to its custody. Reliance has also been placed on the provision embodied in Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 (for short the Benami Act ).

( 7. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant No. 2 is that though the car has been purchased in the name of the petitioner and is registered in his name, no part of its price has been paid by the petitioner. He urges that the fact that from the time of the purchase the vehicle has been in the possession of the non-applicant No. 2 coupled with the petitioners silence in the matter for months together eloquently indicates that he has very little to do with the vehicle. According to the learned counsel, in the circumstances of the case, no interference in exercise of this Courts revisional jurisdiction is called for. Reliance was placed on the decision in Mohanlals case, 1980 MPLI SN 35.

( 8. ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

( 9. ) IT may be stated at the outset that as pointed out in the decision in Mohanlals case (supra) order passed by a Magistrate allowing an application of the accused for in