?•<? ^p ^^ '^3^ s'i^:i1'.?'- •^ JHE HIGH COURT OF RnDHYA PRADESH AT 3SBALPBR* 9 CRiniNAL SPPEftl, No. I-i95l /1950 Appellants^- 1» KISHASLAL, a@Bd 36 years son of Shri ,„. ^, ^ jnapuram Taqa» -!1-: l::;i".) •>l~^^' P-S.Ax-janda, _at ^-.^^^f -riy) n 'V-Jh.ewi Tahsil and Gistrict,Durg», y, -$_~'7-'e'® 2, Shri Laxnan Bhai Patal-'aged .40 years scn i Oayabhai Patel» Bldi Patta Vyaparl» residi .. .•/ l.p. flPPESL UNDER SECTION_4S4 f/»386 and 482 Bf IHE CODE OF KI-HC-22 s'R'g^h; •tot^snt^ Wii^'r^ K-^^i'fci^l^^ ••: BSSWSir'""' :-!^> £3K;;^:B..^^i4% ffiNaB3!' J^ ?^ •sim'w), ^'cfltTis, feroy ST 'sr^'s ,,.CA:..&.:...K?5^ili (^10 BTarwgftB •TnwT^fsist q; Srfiatt SII^I Shri Tiwari, counsel for tlie appeUanfs Miss Sharmila Suighai, cc^unsel for ffaei^spondent. The revision is against ttje order dated 19-05-1990 passed by fhe Special Judge in M.C.C.No|48/1989. By the impugned order, flie prayer made by fhe appena4ts for release of ffae seized rice bags has beeii reiected aad v.'hile rei lield tliat so far as the price of 6p bags of rice is conceraed, the same •tor aad tlic applicant can approach tfae facts and circuDistances of the Haiiing thus considered receipt/production ofa copy ofl|his order ;cting tlie said prayer, ftie Court has case, inaterial on record, in t4e opinion of this Couri the leanied court belov,7 has not coTnmittef^ aiiy jurisdictional error wan-antuii interterence by fhis Court. Ho^yever, the appeBants inay subDiit aii applica'don along with a cop.yl of fhis order belbre flie CoUector regarding price deteroaination atnd ia case such aii application is subinitted, fhen the same will bj as possible preferably wifhi^i sjx weeks fi-om. tb.e date of considered by fhe CoUector as early C. C. be suoi->liei3