- (1.) Petitioner has preferred this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition aggrieved by order dated 18.11.2014 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan, Head Quarters Chomu, whereby Criminal Revision Petition filed by the Respondent No.2 was allowed and order dated 19.06.2014 was quashed.
(2.) It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that initially vide order dated 18.01.2014, the vehicle was directed to be given on supurdagi to Respondent No.2 at that relevant time. Application filed by the petitioner for release of vehicle on supurdagi to the petitioner was pending. Petitioner is the financier and the vehicle was hypothecated with the petitioner, hence, the petitioner was entitled to the custody of the vehicle. Therefore, after passing of the order dated 18.01.2014 an application was moved to the Court to recall its order and the Court accordingly recalled its order and directed that the matter would be decided afresh after hearing the financier as well as borrower vide order dated 19.06.2014.
(3.) It is contended that the revisional Court has erred in allowing the Revision Petition filed by the Respondent No.2-Borrower, on the ground that the Court did not have jurisdiction to alter its judgment in view of Section 323 of Cr.P.C. It is contended that Section 323 Cr.P.C. has no applicability as the order was for interim supurdagi of the vehicle. It was not the final order or the judgment.;