IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARN, AKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5™ DAY OF JULY 2010 ‘ORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBHASH 8.AD? CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 23/2010 BETWEEN Sri.Suresh Chand S/o Mangilal Aged about 47 years Proprietor of Arihant Cridit Corporation No.587. 1 Floor, 41% Cross 2! Block, Opp. T.G.M.C Bank Rajajinagar, bangaiore- 560 010 Having its head Office At No.96 (old#5} Maddox Stree‘ 1! floor, Vepery Chennai- 600 112. (By Sri.A.G Sridhar, Adv.) AND: 1 State by Indirai Police station ‘epresented by Public Prosecutor Attached to this Hon'ble Court 2 Venkatesti S/o Aged #110, Panatturu dinne Panatturu Post, Varthr Hobli Banglalore East Taluk Bangalore (By Sri.B. Balakrishna, HCGP for R-] Service of notice to R-2 held sufficient) - PETITIONER RESPONDENTSThis Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 Cr-P.C. praying to set aside the order dated 9.3.2010 passed by the IV ACMM., Bangalore in Crime No.232/2008 by allowing the application filed by the petitioner under section 451 of Cr.P.C directing the 1*\ respondent police to release/to give the interim custody of item No.4 of P.F.No,104/2008, i.e.. Vehicle (Two Wheeler Spiender Bike) bearing No.KA-53 K-6036 int favour of the petitioner/applicant This Revision Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the followin; ORDER Petitioner has filed this petition against the order dated 90 March 2010 in Crime No.232/2008 pending on the file of IV Addl.C.M.M., Bangalore. 2. Petitioner and accused in Crime No.232/2008 filed two separate applications under Sections 451 and 457 of Cr.P.C. for release of the vehicle seized in’ the crime, Trial court by order dated 7.10.2008 rejected the application filed by the petitioner and allowed the application filed by the accused. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed a revision petition before the Fast Track Court-ll, Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.29/'2009. The said revision petition was disposed of by order dated 1.2.2010 wherein the Fast Track Court observed that the aceused, who had filed an application for release of the vehicle, after the order, he had not sought for release of the vehicle and the vehicle has been kept idle, It is also observed that, if the vehicle is lying idle and if the conditions imposed by the learnedMagistrate for release of the vehicle are not complied by the accused. there is no impediment for the petitioner to make an application of subsequent development. It is on the basis of the said observati before ine n, petitioner filed another applicati Magistrate. Learned Magistrate rejected the sa application on the ground that, it is hit by Section 362 of Cr.P.C as the Mag istrate has no power to review his own 014 3. There is no doubt as far as prevision of Section 362 of Cr.P.C. is concerned that. ence tne order is passed, the court has no power to alter or amend the judgment, however. the vehicle, which is ordered to be relezsed in ayour of the accused, has not got released by the acerised and admittedly that order is not complied, It is & subsequent application, which is filed for release of the vehicle on ihe basis of the subsequent development, not on the basis of the application earlier filed. The tn court should have considered the application as fresh application based on fresh ground, not on the ground for which the order was carlicr passed. Hence, | find that in view of the accused not getting the vehicle released, the application of the nes be considered on its merit. S yt petitiAccordingly, the Revision Petition stands disposed of. KNM/-