C.A. Rahim, J. - (1.) On 9.11.1991 Truck No. U.P. 78-A-9585 was seized from the possession of one Raju son of Radhey Shyam the revisionist. It was seized in connection with Case No. 1056 of 1991 (Police Station Naubasta, Kanpur Nagar) under Section 406/420/468/506 Indian Penal Code. Complainant Bharat Singh (Opposite party No.2 before me) lodged this case against Radhey Shyam and Raju with the allegation that he purchased in March, 1988 truck C.I.I. 8395 with Chassis No. 364052/859152 and Engine No. 692-D-02878333, L.P. 88 model after obtaining loan from Punjab National Bank. He appointed Radhey Shyam as driver and in January,1991 he entrusted the said truck to Radhey Shyam and Raju to drive the vehicle on condition to pay Rs.10,000/- per month. The said entrustment was done in presence of some witnesses mentioned in the first information report. After some months Radhey Shyam stopped to pay with some pretext and thereafter refused to part with the truck. In the first information report it has been alleged that Radhey Shyam took the truck to an unknown destination and changed the chassis number and after preparing forged documents also changed the registration number. The revisionist contended that he did not receive any truck from Bharat Singh and the truck which was recovered by the police was not the same truck of Bharat Singh being number C.I.I. 8395. According to him it was truck no. UP-70-A-9585 with chassis No. 34405215397 and Engine No. 692 D-02164092. He claimed that the model of the truck is T.D.V. diesel and it was registered at Allahabad on 27.7.1990 in the name of Anil Kumar and Yash Pal Singh. It has been contended that Radhey Shyam, revisionist purchased the said truck from them on 27.7.1991. On 15.11.1991 the police sent the truck to an expert for mechanical examination who filed the report that its model was LP 1988. It has been reported that wrong engine and chassis numbers were embossed after erasing the original number. In the cabin under dashboard he found original chassis number which is tallied with Chassis Number of truck no. C.I.I. 8395 and not of U.P. 78-A-9585, claimed to have been purchased by the revisionist. On application III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar passed an order directing that the truck be given in the supurdagi of the revisionist on furnishing bonds. Opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 preferred revision being Revision no. 14 of 1992 and 54 of 1992. Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, by his judgement and order dated 20.4.1992 allowed the revision No.14 of 1992, reversed the order of the III Additional Munsif Magistrate Kanpur Nagar and directed that truck be given to Bharat Singh opposite party no.2. This is the grievance of the revisionist. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that Anil Kumar and Yashpal Singh executed one receipt for the sale of truck no. U.P. 78-A-9585. Learned counsel has referred the documents annexed with the affidavit wherefrom it appears that the said truck was registered in the name of Anil Kumar and yashpal Singh. Annexure-3 is the national permit which also discloses that the said truck subsequently stands in the name of Radhey Shyam. Annexure-8 is insurance certificate which also stands inthe name of Radhey Shyam . Annexure-12 is the certificate of Sahni Financiers, Kanpur. It discloses that they financed the said truck on hire purchase agreement in favour of Anil Kumar and Yashpal Singh son of Ram Kumar and Bharat Singh and the dues have been cleared. Learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has submitted that the documents annexed to the counter affidavit discloses that truck no. C.I.I. 8395 was purchased by Bharat Singh on hire purchase basis from Kailash Motors as financed by Punjab National Bank. He has submitted that after the seizure the police immediately sent the vehicle seized from Raju son of the revisionist to a mechanical expert, who has submitted the report disclosing that engine number and chassis number of the truck seized from the son of the revisionist was forged. The original number which was detected from dash board tally with the engine and chassis numbers of opposite party no.2. He has submitted that after getting possession of the truck the said forgery was committed and after preparing some forged documents got a new registration number for which the instant case was started which is pending. He has referred Annexure CA-11 statement of Yashpal Singh recorded under Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code during investigation and the affidavit (Annexure-CA-12) of Yashpal Singh from which it appears that he has stated that he never became owner of any truck or sold it to Radhey Shyam. He has also alleged that Radhey Shyam forged the documents in respect of the said truck and got it registered in his name. Learned Magistrate released the truck in favour of the revisionist on the ground that it was seized from his possession. The learned Sessions Judge has reversed the said decision and on the basis of the documents produced by both the parties set aside the said order and released the truck in favour of the opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 has submitted that under Section 457(1) Criminal Procedure Code the delivery of the truck should have been made to the person entitled to the possession. He has referred the decision reported in Karnataka case of S. Rajendran v. K.A.S. Rama Appaswamy and others, 1982 Cr. L.J. page 86 , wherein it has been held that the finding with regard to the delivery of the property in favour of the accused solely on the ground that the same was seized from the possession of the accused without considering the other documents produced by the claimants in question cannot be sustained. Thereunder the case of M/s. Purshottam Das Banarsi Das v. State, 1952 Cr. L.J. 856 is referred wherein it has been held that the Magistrate is not a Civil Court and has no power to decide the disputes about the title. There is nothing in Section 523(old) Criminal Procedure Code to authorise the Magistrate to decide which party is the rightful owner of the property. His enquiry is limited to finding which person is entitled to possession. When there is allegation of forgery against the revisionist and when engine number and chassis numbers were found to be forged and where one of the person who alleged to have sold the vehicle to the revisionist denied the sale with an allegation of forgery it cannot be said that the revisionist is entitled to possession of the property. On the other hand the opposite party no.2 being the owner of truck no. C.I.I. 8395 and genuine chassis and engine number of the recovered truck having tallied with the said truck there is strong prima facie case in favour of the opposite party no.2 and at the stage it can be said that he is the person entitled to possession of the seized truck. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly decided the said fact after scrutinising all pros and cons of the matter alleged by both the parties. I do not find anything to interfere with the said decision. Being devoid of merit the revision is dismissed. All interim orders are vacated. Revision Dismissed.;