Bala Krishna Narayana, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the revisionist and learned AGA for the State.
(2.) THIS application in revision has been filed by the revisionist against the order dated 15.9.2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 7, Allahabad, by which he has rejected his objection dated 18.3.2010 filed by him against the final report submitted in case crime No. 310 of 2007, under Section 406 as not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the revisionists submitted that the reason given in the impugned order by the court below for rejecting the revisionists' objection filed by him against the final report as not maintainable that he was not the first informant is totally untenable. He further submitted that the court below was bound to consider the objection of the revisionist who is the owner of the vehicle which has been stolen/misappropriated, after he had appeared before him and filed his objection, in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Bagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Anr. : A.I.R. 1985 SC 1285.
(3.) PER contra learned AGA made his submission in support of the impugned order.;