D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THE order dated June 24, 1999 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad is under challenge in this revision.

( 2 ) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are as under : truck No. GJ-1-V-5720 is owned by one Rajkiran Ramlal. Under an agreement dated April 29, 1998, this truck came in possession of the respondent Manojkumar Achalaji Khatri. He was plying the truck and was in its actual possession. On August 22, 1988 the DCB Police raided the said truck when it was parked near Mahakali Temple, Asarwa. Huge quantity of illicit liquor worth Rs. 7,12,050=00 was found in the truck. The truck was accordingly seized. At the time of raid, the truck number shown on the number plate was GJ-7-8252. On enquiry by the police it was found that this truck was not registered. On further enquiry, on the basis of chassis number and engine number, it was found that the correct number of the truck is GJ-1-V-5720. After the seizure of the truck, the respondent applied for its release and further prayed for interim custody of the truck alleging that he had no knowledge that the driver of the truck was carrying illicit liquor in the same. The said application of the respondent was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate on March 4, 1999.

( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved, the respondent preferred a revision before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge, under the impugned order, after setting-aside the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, directed that interim custody of the truck be given to the respondent on certain terms and conditions enumerated in the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved with this order the State of Gujarat has preferred this revision.

( 4 ) I have heard Shri MA Bukhari, learned APP for the revisionist and Shri HR Prajapati, learned counsel for the respondent. A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri HR Prajapati that second revision is not maintainable hence, the revision should be summarily dismissed. But, I do not find any substance in this contention. Against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate the revision was not filed by the State of Gujarat but, by the respondent and that revision was allowed by the Sessions Judge. Consequently, this revision cannot be said to be a second revision. It could be styled as second revision only when the first revision against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate would have been filed by the State of Gujarat. Since the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate was set-aside by the Sessions Judge, revision in this Court under sec. 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was rightly filed and is maintainable.

( 5 ) ON going through the impugned order, there is not much scope of interference for the obvious reason that the learned APP, opposing revision in the Court of the Sessions Judge, gave consent that the truck may be given in the interim custody of the respondent before this Court. Once the order was passed in terms of consent of the other side, there remains little opportunity for examining the legality or validity of the impugned order. As such, on this ground alone the revision deserves to be dismissed.

( 6 ) SHRI MA Bukhari, learned APP has further contended that the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate was an interlocutory order and, as such no revision could lie before the Sessions Judge, in view of the bar created by sec. 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am surprised this point was not taken in objection from the side of the State/respondent before the learned Sessions Judge. Even, if it is assumed to be a legal point it can be examined in this revision. I find that the impugned order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate cannot be said to be interlocutory order. This Court, in Thakkar Mahendraprasad Bapalal v/s. The State of Gujarat 1985 GLH p. 61 has held that, "merely because an order under sec. 451 is for interim custody, possession and disposal of case property, it cannot be said to be an interlocutory order not revisable by the High C

Click Here to Read the rest of this document