HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. 1227) No. 1557/2011 PETITIONER Revisioner Represented through: Shri Ashutosh Mishra, aged about 50 years, S/o D1: Vinay Kumar Mishra, presently posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Fo1est Division Raigarh, District Rajgarh, Chhattisgarh and OIC of the case for petitioner] State. RESPONDENTS: VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Forest Range Officer, Raigarh, Dismct Raigarh Banshi Pradhan S/o Shri Raghu Pradhan, aged about 40 years, R/o Village Beluam, District Devgarh (On‘ssa). Ashiyan S/o Dayalugun, aged about 35 years, R/o Aargen, Disuict Devgarh (Orissa). Biranji S/o Bhagirathi, aged about 35 years R/o Aalgen, District Devgarh (Orissa) Ramdiranjan S/o Pumachand Nayak, aged about 42 years, R/o Chini Maahul, District Sambalpur (Orissa) Shridhar S/o Shukamo, aged about 5O years, R/o Aargen, District Devgarh (Orissa). Dukhbandu Nayak, S/o Pumachand Nayak, aged about 45 years, R/o Chim' Maahul, District Sambalpur, (Orissa) Hradayanand S/o Bandhuzaal aged about 41 yeais, R/o Paalhada, District Angul (On‘ssa) Mohan Bhoi S/o Shn' Chaitan Bhoi, R/o Village Lapanga, Police Station Katarboga, District Sambalpur (Orissa). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:— Mr. Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/petitioner. \ Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Advocate for the respondent No. 8. None for the respondents No. 1'to 7. ORDER (Passed on 13/09/201 1) By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order W <2? dated 19/7/2010 passed by Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Rajgarh, Chhaitisgarh in criminal revision No. 92/ 2010 in which Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh has aifnmed the order of interim custody of the vehicle passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, 2. M1“. Sushil Dubey, G.A. for the State/petitioner and Ms. Shannila Singhai, Advocate for the respondent No. 8 are heard. 3. Leanied counsel for the petitioner has not been able to Show any illegality in the order impugned requiring any interference in exemise of supervisory jurisdiction. Consequently, petition is dismissedf’summarily. No order as to costs. 4. LA. No. 01 is also dismissed. Sd/- T.P. Sharma : Judge w ea W