( 1 ) THE facts relevant to the decision of this petition succinctly are that Zamir Ahmed, deceased husband of the petitioner, was a motor mechanic and was having his place of work near Inter-State Bus Terminal, Delhi He used to repair shock absorbers and do other auto jobs in the repairs of motor vehicles etc. and he had kept his goods including shock absorbers, tools and implements in a box at the place of his work. He died on 7th March 1983 under mysterious circumstances as bodies of both Zamir Ahmed and his son Anis Ahmad aged about 19 wears were found floating in river yamuna on 20th December 1983. The petitioner lodged a report with the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sadar Circle, Delhi that the respondent, who is younger brother of her deceased husband, had stolen all the articles viz. sohck absorbers, took and implements etc. of her deceased husband by removing the box containing the same from the place of work of the deceased to his own house at 1074. First Floor Kishanganj (Teliwara ). A case was registered being FIR No. 745/83, Police Station Kashmere Gate, under Section 379 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to IPC) against the respondent on the basis of the said report and search of the aforesaid house of the respondent was effected on 22nd December 1983. As a result of the house search of the respondent, 170 big sized shock absorbers, 30 small sized shock absorbers, some tools and implements and the box containing the goods etc. were recovered and seized by the police. On completion of the investigation the police filed a charge-sheet against the respondent on 9th June 1984.

( 2 ) THE respondent moved an application dated 26th September 1984 for return of the seized goods to him contending that he was rightful owner thereof and the same had no connection whatsoever with the alleged theft. He also pointed out that there was likelihood of the said goods being damaged in the event of the trial pretracting over a long period and he would suffer irreparable loss on that account. The said request was opposed by the complainant-petitioner, who asserted that the goods in question belonged to her deceased husband Zamir Ahmed and had been stolen by the respondent from the place of his work taking advantage of her helplessness.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate vide order dated 28th November 1984 rejected the application of the respondent and directed that the articles be released to the complainant Smt. Anisa Begum on her furnishing Superdaginama in the sum of Rs. 5,000. 00. Feeling aggrieved the respondent went in revision in the Court of Sessions. It was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge who vide impugned order dated 8th February 1985 set aside the aforesaid older of the Metropolitan Magistrate and directed that the seized articles be returned to the respondent-Masoom Ali. Hence, this revision petition by the complainant-petitioner against the aforesaid order of the Additional Sessions Judge.

( 4 ) THE controversy between the parties lies in a narrow compass, the crucial question for determination being whether the custody of the seized articles be entrusted to the complainant-petitioner or the accused-respondent pending conclusion of the trial. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has at the outset assailed the impugned order as being without jurisdiction in view of the bar contained in Section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code ). Section 397 (1) of the Code empowers the courts specified therein viz. the High Court Sessions Court to call for the records of inferior criminal court and examine them for the purpose of satisfying themselves as to whether a cricumstance, finding or order of such inferior court is legal, correct or proper or whether the proceedings of such inferior courts are regular. The said provision is very widely worded and the obvious object of conferring powers of revision is to give superior criminal courts a supervisory j