IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER BIRJU @ VIJAYPAL VS. STATE OF RAJ. AND ORS. SB Criminal Revision Pet. No.267 of 2008 under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated Feb. 19, 2008 of Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Sikar Camp Srimadhopur in criminal appeal No. 15 of 2006 whereby set aside the order dated September 4, 2006 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Srimadhopur in FIR No. 132 of 2006 PS Srimadhopur under sections 379 and 120 B IPC. allowing application of petitioner for supurdagi of Jeep No. RJ 18 U 0213. Date of Order : November 24, 2008 PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Ganesh Meena for the petitioner. Mr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, Additional Government Counsel for DTO. Mr. G.S. Shekhawat for the respondent Ramu. BY THE COURT : This petition has been filed against the order dated Feb. 19, 2008 of the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track ) No.2 Sikar Camp Srimadhopur, whereby it set aside the order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate dated September 4, 2006 giving Jeep No. RJ 18 U 0213 on supurdagi in FIR No. 132 of 2006 under sections 379, 120 B IPC to the respondent Ramu. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Birju @ Vijaypal is the power of attorney holder of Harlal, respondent No.3, who is registered owner of the vehicle Jeep No. RJ 18 U 0213. The complainant Ramu (who is respondent No.2 herein) filed a complaint on May 2, 2006 before the trial court that on March 4, 2006 at about 7 p.m. when he visited his sister's house, the petitioner Birju @ Vijaypal took his jeep and on next day when he met Birju and asked for jeep, he said that some relatives have gone some where and he will return his jeep and lateron refused to return the jeep. The Magistrate sent the complaint to the Police Station Srimadhopur for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the police registered FIR No.132 of 2006 for offence under Sections 379 and 120 B IPC and recovered the jeep from the possession of the petitioner. The police submitted final report in the matter. The petitioner being power of attorney holder for the registered owner of the Jeep RJ 18 U 0213 moved application before the trial court for supurdagi of jeep. The same was accepted and the trial court ordered to release the aforesaid jeep on supurdignama in favour of the petitioner by order dated September 4, 2006. The same was challenged before the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Sikar by respondent/ complainant Ramu. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated Feb. 19, 2008 set aside the order dated September 4, 2006 and reversed the trial court's order. Hence this petition was preferred. 3. Without going into the merits of the case, both the parties have shown the certified photostat copies of the documents regarding title of the jeep, complaint filed by the respondent No.2, form Nos. 29 and 30 and other relevant documents which were not considered by the appellate court at the time of hearing the appeal. 4. For these reasons I think it proper to set aside the order dated Feb. 19, 2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2006 by the Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2 Sikar Camp Srimadhopur and at the same time I direct that he will rehear the matter as a fresh within a period 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 5. The revision petition is disposed as indicated above and the matter is remanded back. Stay 6. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application also stands disposed of. (Mahesh Chandra Sharma) J. OPPareek/