Dr. (Mrs.) Indira Shah, J.

1. The legality and validity of the orders dated 11.08.2011, 12.09.2011 and 15.09.2011, passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Shillong in Mawsynram P.S. Case No. 2(1) of 2011 have been impugned in this revision application. I have heard Mr. M.F. Qureshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. H. Abraham, learned P.P. appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1/State of Meghalaya.

2. The petitioner, who is the registered owner of the vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. AS-23-G-0245 lodged an FIR at Mawsynram police station alleging that respondent No. 2 forcibly took away the Vehicle. Police registered a case under Section 393 IPC and the accused-respondent No. 2 was arrested. Respondent No. 2, after his release from the jail custody on bail, moved an application for custody of the said vehicle, which was, however, rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 19.04.2011. The petitioner's prayer for 'zimma' of the vehicle was allowed with certain conditions vide order dated 09.05.2011.

3. On 05.07.2011, respondent No. 2 moved a petition for re-calling the order dated 09.05.2011 and the learned trial Court re-called the said order on 11.08.2011 without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter, on 15.9.2011, moved a petition to recall the order dated 11.08.2011, which was rejected.

4. During the pendency of investigation and before the order for 'zimma' of the vehicle was passed, the respondent No. 2 filed T.S. No. 5(H) 2011 and vide order passed in Misc. Case No. 7(11) 2011 obtained interim injunction in respect of the vehicle. His petition for 'zimma' of the vehicle was rejected vide order dated 19.04.2011, wherein it was observed by the learned trial Court that Civil Court has issued show cause notice as to why interim order should not be made absolute. The petitioner was allowed 'zimma' of the vehicle on the basis of report submitted by the investigating officer regarding ownership of the vehicle.

5. The order dated 05.07.2011 speaks that the petitioner vide injunction order passed by the Civil Court for restraining from taking possession of the vehicle and the interim injunction order was made absolute by the subsequent order. The petitioner obtained the order for 'zimma' of the vehicle concealing the order passed by the competent Civil Court. The order rejecting the prayer of 'zimma' of the vehicle in favour of the respondent No. 2 was also challenged and sub-judiced Criminal Revision No. 13 (SH) 2011. Considering all, the trial Court stayed the order dated 09.05.2011 and notice to petitioner was issued to show-cause as to why the order should not be recalled.

6. It transpires from the order dated 11.08.2011 that in spite of service of notice, the petitioner did not file show cause reply and the learned trial Court recalled the order dated 09.05.2011. On 15.09.2011, the petitioner moved an application to recall the order dated 11.08.2011, which was rejected.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Criminal Court under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can pass an order of disposal of property till the end of trial. The trial Court has no jurisdiction to review its order. Therefore, the orders passed by the learned trial Court are illegal and liable to be set aside.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Mr. Khan submitted that the petitioner obtained order for 'zimma' of the vehicle by suppressing the material facts. The petitioner duly participated in the Misc. Case before the Civil Court and the interim injunction order was made absolute after elaborate discussion by the Civil Court. Moreover, the order of the learned trial Court rejecting the respondent's prayer for 'zimma' of the vehicle has been challenged in Criminal Revision. The petitioner had the notice of pendency of the Criminal Revision