[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1181/2007 MANGTU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Date: 21.02.2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Bharat Saini for the complainant-petitioner. Mr. Arun Sharma, Public Prosecutor for the State. None present for the accused-respondent. **** None appeared for the respondent despite service. In brief the facts of the case are that on 30.08.2002 the petitioner submitted a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu which was sent to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and on the basis of which first information report was came to be registered for the offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC. During investigation the police seized the tractor and send the disputed documents to F.S.L. During trial the complainant-petitioner filed an application for releasing the tractor on 'Supardaginama' and the same was allowed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu vide its order dated 09.01.2004 and the tractor was [2] released on 'Supardaginama' in favour of the petitioner. The said order dated 09.01.2004 releasing the tractor on 'Supardaginama' in favour of the petitioner was assailed by the accused-respondent by way of filing a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge and the Revisional Court directed the Court below to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties and taking into consideration all the documents available on record. The Court below having considered the submissions of both the parties and taking into consideration all the documents vide its order dated 29.01.2007 allowed the complainant-petitioner to keep the tractor on 'Supurdaginama' during pendency of the case. Against the said order dated 29.01.2007 the accused-respondent again preferred a criminal revision before the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu which was registered as Criminal Revision Petition No. 40/2007. The Revisional Court vide its order impugned dated 16.04.2007 without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, partly allowed the criminal revision filed by the accused-respondent and set aside the order of the Court below dated 29.01.2007 as well [3] as the order dated 09.01.2004 vide which the petitioner was given the tractor on 'Supardaginama' and further directed the Court below to again decide the matter after hearing both the parties as per law. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 16.04.2007, the present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the complainant-petitioner on the ground that this fact is not disputed that the petitioner is the registered owner of the tractor in question and the Court below vide its earlier order dated 09.01.2004 as well as the order dated 29.01.2007 which was passed as the Revisional Court remanded the matter back to the Court below to decide the matter afresh, given the tractor in question to the petitioner on 'Supardaginama' but the Revisional Court while setting aside the order of the Court below dated 29.01.2007, partly allowed the criminal revision filed by the accused-respondent and it was ordered to keep the tractor in custody of the police. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the orders passed by the Court below as well as the Revisional Court. [4] The Revisional Court without considering the findings given by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and without considering the fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of the tractor in question and till disposal of the case the tractor has been ordered to be handed over to the petitioner on 'Supardaginama' which was passed in the interest of justice and the same was not required to be interfered with by the Revisional Court but the Revisional Court while partly allowing the criminal revision filed by the accused-respondent, ordered to keep the tractor in custody of the police, therefore, the order impugned dated 16.04.2007 passed by the Revisional Court requires interference by this Court. Consequently, the order impugned dated 16.04.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu is hereby quashed and set aside and the order dated 29.01.2007 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu is upheld. The criminal misc. petition stands allowed accordingly. (K.S. RATHORE)J. /KKC/