S. K. PHAUJDAR, J.

Although the cases are different on facts, a common point arises in both of them and on that common point the present order is being recorded which will cover both these mat ters.

2. Crl. Misc. Application 2688of 1998 has been filed against an order of release of a truck which is being claimed by the present applicant and which was detained in case Crime No. 204 of 1998 under Sec tion 406, IPC, P. S. Mughal Sarai, District Chanduali. Learned CJM, Varanasi, was approached for an order of release and he by his order dated 16-7-1998, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 457, Cr. P. C. had rejected the prayer.

3. In Crl. Misc. Application 2694 of 1998 also it is a question of release of a DBBL gun which was seized in connection with case Crime No. 392 of 1997 under Sections 364-A and 368, IPC relating to P. S. Kotwali,

Shamli, District Muzaf-farnager. The prayer for release of a truck as was made was rejected by the learned CJM, Muzaffarnagar on 4-7-98.

4. The common question that arises in these two cases is whether the applicants in both the cases should have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the court and not the inherent powers to seek the relief t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document