THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.25 of 2003 DATED: 22-07-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioners herein, questioning the docket order, dated 09-09-2002, passed in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2000 by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Razole. 2. Brief facts of the case are that during the cyclone in 1996, the 2nd respondent herein and others lost their boats etc., and hence the 2nd respondent was granted a boat by the Fisheries Development Officer, Kakinada on 16-08-2000. The scheme was that the 2nd respondent herein should be the head of a team consisting of himself and petitioners 2 to 5 herein and a certificate of registration along with Identity card bearing the photographs of the petitioners and the 2nd respondent herein was issued and the boat was delivered to the 2nd respondent herein on 16-08-2000. While so, the 1st petitioner herein, in collusion with the petitioners 2 to 5, highhandedly took away the said boat and used the same for fishing at Karavaka. Thereupon, the 2nd respondent herein issued a registered notice, dated 23-10-2000, to the Fisheries Development Officer, Kakinada, but even after receipt of the said notice, petitioners herein have not returned the boat and have been using the same for fishing. Thereupon, 2nd respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2000 and the learned Magistrate by docket order, dated 09-09-2002, directed both parties to approach the civil Court in connection with declaration of their right over the said boat and to take possession of the same. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed. 3. On an application in Crl.M.P.No.2696 of 2000 under Section 94 Cr.P.C., seeking issuance of search warrant by appointing Advocate-Commissioner to search the said boat and for interim custody of the same, an Advocate- Commissioner was appointed and a search warrant was issued and the Commissioner seized the boat and handed over the same to the 2nd respondent herein on 22-11-2000, but as there is a dispute with regard to the ownership of the said boat for the reason that the petitioners herein are also claiming title over the said boat, a docket order was passed on 09-09-2002, directing both parties to approach the civil Court in connection with declaration of their right over the said boat and to take possession of the same. The impugned order, in my considered view, is perfectly justified and needs no interference of this Court. There are no merits in this revision. 4. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 22nd July, 2010. Tsy