1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT PRINCIPAL SEAT, JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1009/2009 {Jagdish Chandra Sharma Versus The State of Rajasthan} Date of Order :: 8th July, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri V.K. Sharma Counsel for the petitioner Shri Mahipal Bishnoi, PP for the State BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner moved an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the trial court for delivery of seized articles / wooden on 'Supurdginama' on the ground that police has submitted a Final Report in the matter. The Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Anoopgarh vide its order dated 29th November, 2007 dismissed the application on the ground that Final Report is still pending. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred the revision petition. During the pendency of revision petition, a cognizance has been taken in the matter for the offence under Section 332, 353 and Section 30, 32 and 33 of the Forest Act, as mentioned in 2 the order of revisional court. The revisional court has considered the matter in detail and has also observed that after submission of Final Report, the complainant has examined CW-1 to CW-6. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed. 3. Being aggrieved with the same, the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged both the impugned orders contending that they are bad in law and deserve to be quashed and set-aside by this Court. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor defended the impugned orders passed by both the courts below. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 7. The trial court rejected the application initially on the ground that Final Report is pending under consideration. The revisional court has considered that cognizance has been taken of the offence in the matter. The other circumstances have also been taken into consideration by the revisional court while rejecting the revision petition. I do not find any abuse of the process of law, so as to 3 interfere with the orders passed by both the courts below. Hence, this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed being devoid of any merit. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN), J. DK