( 1 ) THE order of the Additional Sessions Judge, jamnagar, passed on 21-1-2000 is under challenge in this Revision. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this Revision are as under : the truck No. GRX 4963 was seized by the Police on 4-4-1999 as case property for investigation of offences under Sees. 392, 406, 420 read with Sec. 114 of the I. P. Code. The said case was registered on the complaint of satpalsingh Ajitsingh who is revisionist in this Revision. He moved an application praying that the aforesaid truck be given in his interim custody on imposing terms and conditions. He apprehended that if the truck is not given in his custody and remains idle at the police station for long time, then it will be damaged and since the truck is the sole source of business of the complainant he will suffer monetary loss as well. Objection was submitted against this Application by Sunilbhai D. Kalyani, partner of M/s. Kalyani Trading Co. inter alia pleading that the revisionist was not lawful owner of the said truck. On the other hand, kalyani Trading Co. , is a firm engaged in financing business. One Purshottam mavjibhai Dangaria obtained loan/finance of Rs. 1,11,000. 00 on the said truck, but he did not pay instalments since long. It came to the knowledge of the kalyani Trading Co. , that Purshottam Dangaria had sold the truck to the revisionist. This agreement between the original owner and the revisionist was said to be illegal and as such on the basis of such agreement possession of the truck could not be handed over to the complainant-revisionist. It was also alleged that the name of Satpalsingh, the revisionist has not been registered in the R. C. , and other papers hence he was not entitled to interim custody of the truck.

( 2 ) PURSHOTTAM Dangaria, the real owner of the truck also filed objection to the application of the revisionist pleading that the revisionist is not the lawful owner of the truck and he has no authority and right to get interim custody of the truck. He also maintained that the truck has not been registered in the office of the R. T. O. , in the name of the revisionist.

( 3 ) ON account of failure of payment of instalments by the owner of the truck, the Kalyani Trading Co. , instructed its agent to obtain possession of the truck from the owner. This instruction was given on 1-4-1999. However, on the complaint of the revisionist the police had seized the truck from financier. There were thus three rival claimants to the possession and interim custody of the truck, namely, Purshottam Dangaria, the revisionist and Kalyani Trading co.

( 4 ) LEARNED J. M. F. C. , Jamnagar, allowed the application of the revisionist and directed interim custody of the truck to be given to him on the terms and conditions imposed in the order dated 15-9-1999. Feeling aggrieved revision was filed by the partner of Kalyani Trading Co. , which was allowed under the impugned order and after setting aside the order of the learned J. M. F. C. the court below directed that the truck be given in the interim custody of Kalyani trading Co. on the terms and conditions imposed in the said order dated 21-1-2000. It is, therefore, this revision.

( 5 ) THE first contention of Shri N. C. Thakkar, learned Counsel for the revisionist has been that the order of the learned J. M. F. C. Jamnagar passed under Sec. 451 Cr. P. C. is interlocutory order and against such order no revision could be filed before the Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, in view of the bar created by Sec. 397 (2) Cr. P. C. The impugned order is without jurisdiction and illegal, hence it deserves to be set aside. He has relied upon the cases of Joshy v. State, reported in 1986 Cri. LJ 263 and Yadav Agencies Pvt. Ltd. v. Philomina and anr. , reported in 1985 Cri. LJ 1798, both of Kerala High Court. This contention of Shri N. C. Thakkar cannot be accepted in view of pronouncement of this court in Thakkar Mahendraprasad Bapalal and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Anr. , repo