N.B. Asthana, J. - (1.) The revisionist filed an application before II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad for the release of Jeep No. DL-3C-7874. This Jeep was seized on 7.5.94 in case crime no. 251/94 under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, P.S. Vijai Nagar, Ghaziabad. This vehicle was given on lease by M/s. World Link Finance Ltd. New Delhi to Sudesh Sharma for the period of 30.6.90 to 30.5.94 on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,469/-. It was further agreed upon between them that in case Sudesh Sharma paid the entire lease rent then he will have the option to retain the vehicle and the Finance Company will transfer the right and title of the vehicle in favour of Sudesh Sharma. According to the revisionist Sudesh Sharma paid the entire lease rent to the finance company. He became the owner and transferred the vehicle in favour of the revisionist. The vehicle was registered in his name. He became the owner thereof and is therefore entitled to get custody of the vehicle in question. The opposite party No.2 namely world Link Finance Company contested this application upon the allegations that the vehicle in question was purchased by it from Das Motors Chandigarh. Lease agreement dated 20.5.90 was then entered into between it and Sudesh Sharma. The lease agreement contained a clause which entitled the Finance Company to seize the vehicle in case instalments were not paid on due dates. Sudesh Sharma became a defaulter and therefore on 7.5.94 in accordance with the terms of the lease the vehicle was seized by the Finance Company. The revisionist has nothing to do with the vehicle in question. It was taken from the possession of the Finance Company in whose name it was registered. It was denied that Sudesh Sharma had anything to do with the vehicle in question and it was said that on the basis of forged papers the revisionist got the registration made3 in his favour. The trial court vide order dated 12.5.94 called for all the relevant papers from Delhi Regional Transport Office relating to the vehicle in question which included the paper with respect to the registration in the name of the revisionist. It appears these papers were not received till 17.5.94 and therefore the vehicle was released in favour of the revisionist stating that the registration of the vehicle is in his name. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order Finance Company filed criminal revision no. 258/94 which was allowed on 15.7.94. The order passed by the trial court was set aside. Direction was given to keep the vehicle in the custody of the police till the investigation was completed and after completion of the investigation the trial court was directed to pass appropriate order after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the report of the police. It may be noted that the opposite party No.2 had also lodged an F.I.R. under Sections 420 and 467 Indian Penal Code, against the revisionist and others on the basis of which a case was registered. it is also being investigated along with the F.I.R. lodged by the revisionist. The revisional court came to the conclusion that the vehicle was registered in the name of the Finance Company and it was given on lease to Sudesh Sharma. The revisionist was not able to show as to from whom he purchased the vehicle in question nor the papers relating to the purchase for example sale letter was produced before the trial court. The trial court wanted the papers to be brought on record relating to the vehicle in question from the Transport Office at Delhi but subsequently the order was passed without looking into these papers. The revisional court was of the opinion that Deo Kumar Sharma has not been able to established as to how he became the owner of the vehicle in question nor he could produce the relevant papers to show as to how he could have purchased the vehicle in question from Sudesh Sharma. The order passed by the trial court releasing the vehicle in his favour was improper. In the grounds of revision it is admitted that the vehicle was given on lease to Sudesh Sharma and that Sudesh Sharma paid the entire amount to the Finance Company and therefore he became the owner. No evidence has been placed on record to show that that the entire lease money was paid by Sudesh Kumar Sharma. On the other hand the contention of the Finance Company is that the vehicle was seized because Sudesh Sharma sailed to pay the lease money. This contention finds support from the fact that the vehicle was taken into possession by the police from the opposite party No.2. No papers have been placed on record to indicate that the vehicle was transferred by the opposite party No.2 in favour of Sudesh Sharma and then Sudesh Sharma transferred the vehicle in favour of the revisionist. It has been argued that after the vehicle was seized by opposite party No.2 Sudesh Sharma in collusion with the revisionist got the vehicle registered in the name of the revisionist and then lodged the F.I.R. got the vehicle seized and took it into his supurdagi. The present position is that the vehicle in question is registered in the name of opposite party as well as in the name of the revisionist. Only one of them could be the owner thereof and not the both. In the circumstances there was no justification for the trial court to release the vehicle in favour of the revisionist. The lower revisional court rightly set aside that order and directed that the matter be again decided after the police had enquired into the matter and submitted it report. The order in question does not suffer from any infirmity, irregularity or impropriety. It is a fit case to be dismissed. The revision is dismissed. The stay order granted on 21.5.94 is vacated. Revision Dismissed.;