Heard the parties.

2. The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this present application are that on the information of one Tarun Kumar Banerjee, a first information report being Bermo P.S. Case No. 76/2003 was registered under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In the F.I.R. it was alleged, that the informant had purchased one truck. bearing registration No. WB-73/4430, from one Bablu Panda on a consideration of Rs. 2,71,000/- and a sale note was also executed. After one month of the purchase, Bablu Panda came to the informant and took his signature on a blank paper, on the pretext to get the name of the informant entered in the owner book and he also took away the truck alongwith the papers. It was further alleged that thereafter, Bablu Panda neither returned the truck to the informant nor his name was entered in the owner book of the vehicle. On enquiry, he came to know that the registration number of the truck in question has been changed and the same was handed over to one Alakh Narayan Verma for plying the same.

3. In course 'of investigation the police seized the truck.

4. The petitioner herein, namely Rash Bihari Singh claiming himself to be the owner of the vehicle, filed a petition before the Magistrate for release of the truck. A report from the Investigating Officer was called for, which was submitted showing doubt over the chassis number and engine number because it was found that the chassis number and engine number were over punched. The I.O. reported that verification was necessary to ascertain as to whether the seized truck was having registration No. WB-73/4480 or WB-37 A/2096. It appears that by order dated 20.8.2003 the learned A.C.J.M. directed the Investigating Officer to release the truck in favour of the petitioner Rash Bihari Singh on furnishing indemnity bond of Rs. 7,00,000/- with some other conditions mentioned in the order (Annexure-2).

5. The vehicle in question however could not be released by the police to Rash Bihari Singh because the person who approached the police claiming himself to be Rash Bihari Singh to be the owner of the vehicle was found to be a fictitious person. In fact he was Pasupati Nath Prasad @ Pasupati Prasad and not Rash Bihari Singh. Accordingly, a separate case was instituted against the said person being Bermo P.S. Case No. 101/2003 under Section 419, 420 and 120B of the IPC.

6. As it appears from the facts stated in the impugned revisional order that on 31.3.2004 one another petition was filed by the said Pasupati Nath Prasad before the Magistrate for release of the aforesaid truck claiming himself to be the power of attorney holder of Rash Bihari Singh, the real owner but his prayer for release was rejected by the Magistrate by order dated 31.3.2004. Against the said order dated 31.3.2004 a criminal revision no. 47/2004 was filed, which was dismissed by order dated 24.6.2004 by the Sessions Judge.

Thereafter, on 24.7.2004 one another petition was filed before the Magistrate by the present petitioner Rash Bihari Singh for release of the said truck bearing No. WB37 A/2096, stating therein that by order dated 20.8.2003, his prayer for release was already allowed but since in his place his power of attorney holder Pasupati Nath Prasad appeared before the Police for release of the vehicle in his favour but that was rejected and, as such, now a fresh direction be issued to the Police to release the vehicle in the light of the order dated 20.8.2003. It was also stated in his petition that earlier the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was called for but the same has not been received and unnecessary delay was being caused and, as such without waiting for the said report, his petition may be disposed of. Since the petitioner insisted that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory as called for was not being received, which was causing unnecessary delay and, therefore, his petition for release may be disposed of without waiting for