- (1.) D. P. S. Chauhan, J. Cause list is revised. No one is appeared in support of this application. Heard learned additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
(2.) THIS is an application moved under Section 482, Cr. P. C. for releasing of the turck No. UPH 7718 in favour of the applicant. The Munsif Magistrate, Varanasi in the case of Sate v. Dhurey Lal, P. S. Rohaniya on 9-12-1981 passed an order saying that he has come to the conclusion that the truck which has been recovered, belongs to Dhurey Lal and it would be in the interest of justice to place the same in his Supurdgi with an undertaking that he would produce the same in Court at his own expense. This order of the Magistrate dated 9-12-1981 was challenged by way of revision being Revision No. 519 of 1981 by Harbansh Kumar, present petitioner to IV Additional District Judge, Varanasi, who vide his order dated 7-4-1982 dismissed the revision saying that the learned Magistrate had rightly released the truck in favour of opposite party No. 2 i. e. Ghurey Lal. Now by means of this application the petitioner has challenged the order passed in the revision. The order passed in revision is final as it is not challengeable by means of further revision and the bar provided under Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. comes into operation and the High Court has no power of revision. A full Bench decision of this Court in the case of H. K. Rawal & Anr. v. Nidhi Prakash &anr. , 1989 A. W. C. 632 this Court has taken a view that the High Court must exercise the inherent power very sparingly. One such case would be the desirability of the quahing of a criminal proceeding initiated illegally, vexatiously or as being without jurisdiction. In the present case the conduct of the petitioner is that he has not turned up. From the record, there does not appear to by any such thing which may entitled this Court to interfere in its inherent poweres under Section 482, Cr. P. C. Apart from this the Full Bench (supra) has said that the order of Sessions Judge in revision is final and cannot be interfered with by the High Court in revision either at the instance of the same party or suo motu or in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C.
(3.) THE application is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable. Petition dismissed. .;