THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.272 of 2001 DATED:19-08-2010 ORDER: This revision is filed by the petitioner, questioning the judgment, dated 18-12-2000, passed in Crl.R.P.No.295 of 2000 by the learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd respondent herein filed Crl.M.P.No.3683 of 2000 in Cr.No.229 of 2000 of Shahinayatgunj police station, Hyderabad on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. to order interim custody of the vehicle bearing No.AHY 9449 (Maruthi van) alleging that he purchased the said vehicle from one S.Manik Reddy on 10-05-2000 and that the revision petitioner herein and others-accused took away the said vehicle forcibly from his possession and a case was registered against the accused and the said vehicle was recovered by the police, Shahinayatgunj and at present, it is lying in police custody and R.C. book was given to the police and that the vehicle requires proper care and custody, otherwise it would be damaged for which he would suffer heavy loss which cannot be compensated at any cost and he undertook that he will produce the vehicle as and when required by the Court. However, the learned Magistrate after hearing both the counsel dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, 2nd respondent herein preferred Crl.R.P.No.295 of 2000 and the learned Judge allowed the petition and granted interim custody of the said vehicle on certain conditions. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner herein preferred the present revision. 3. As the notices sent by the office were not yet returned served on the respondents, this Court directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to take out fresh notices and also to furnish the correct address of the 2nd respondent herein. Further, this Court by order, dated 05- 11-2009, clearly observed that in the event of the petitioner failing to furnish the correct address of the 2nd respondent, this revision stands dismissed against the 2nd respondent without further reference to the Court. 4. Office has put a note that the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to furnish the correct address of the 2nd respondent herein. In the light of the said office note, it is clear that this revision stands dismissed insofar as the 2nd respondent is concerned. Now, this revision lies only against the 1st respondent-State, which is a formal party, and therefore, no orders need be passed in this revision. 5. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. _______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J 19th August, 2010. Tsy