H.R. Panwar, J. - (1.) By the instant criminal revision petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.5.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Deedwana (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter), whereby the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 451 Criminal Procedure Code. seeking interim custody of jeep bearing No. RJ-21-C-5745. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant. Perused the order impugned and challan papers.
(3.) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a sole owner of the jeep and except the petitioner, no one has led any claim before the trial Court for custody of the jeep in question. Jeep in question was seized by the police on 23.2.2001 under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code. as it was lying abandoned. The occurrence is of February 2001 and thereafter the petitioner was arrested on 23.5.2003 in crime report No.19/2001, whereas the Jeep in question was seized under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code. on 23.2.2001 and, therefore, till the jeep was seized, it was not involved in any commission of crime. Thereafter also, no information was given by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. So far as the injuries to the deceased of the crime case alleged to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon is concerned, according to the learned counsel at any rate, jeep owned by the petitioner is not involved in any commission of crime.;