1. These two revision petitions arise out of an order passed by the learned Chief City Magistrate-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, dated 13-7-1964 whereby he directed the parties to approach the Civil Court in order to get the title to the lorry settled. What happened was that the police of Afzalgunj registered a case under Section 420 I. P. C. on 8-1-1963. That was in pursuance of a complaint filed by one of the petitioners complaining against one Chandrasekhar, who is his sister's husband's brother. It was contended that the lorry was purchased by the 2nd petitioner bearing registration No. APF 2171 on hire purchase basis from the 1st petitioner in 1960. That was a Ford 1944 model and was equipped with a diesel engine. When the said vehicle was in possession of one mechanic at Afzalgunj for repairs, Chandrasekhar the 1st accused, by falsely representing that the vehicle was to be taken beck to the 2nd petitioner took possession of the vehicle from the mechanic and then subsequently sold it to some person at Kosgi, Upon this complaining, the Police seized the vehicle from a rice mill of which one Bhadrappa was the owner. At the time when the lorry was seized it did not have any number plate. The complainant's contention was that the original chassis had been replaced by that of another vehicle bearing registration No. MSP 129. The Police, after due investigation, charge-sheeted Chandrasekhar and the first petitioner for the offence of cheating,. The 1st petitioner was charged with abutment of the offence. After a proper trial, both the accused were acquitted. The Trial Court in its judgment directed the vehicle seized to be given to P. W. 4 who had laid claim to the lorry. P. W. 4 was the petitioner before me in Cri. R. C. No. 922 of 1964 and he died during the pendency of the petition and his legal representative has been brought on record. The accused filed an application under Section 520 Cr. P. C. before the Chief City Magistrate, Hyderabad complaining that the order of the Trial Court directing delivery of the lorry to P. W. 4 is bad in law. The learned Chief City Magistrate directed that the lorry should be retained in the Criminal Court until such time as either of the claimants establishes his title to the lorry in a competent Civil Court. It is this view that is now challenged both by the heir of P. W. 4 and the accused in these two revision petitions.
2. Now, under Section 520, any Court of Appeal, confirmation, reference or revision may direct any order under Section 517, Section 518, or Section 519, passed by a Court subordinate thereto to be stayed, pending consideration by the former Court, and may modify, alter or annul such order and make any further orders that may be just. Both the complainant as well as the accused claim the lorry. The lorry was seized from the possession of one Bhadrappa, the owner of the rice mill at Kosgi. He has no interest in the lorry. He has not approached the Court and asked for the delivery of the lorry. IN view of the rival claims made by the accused as well as the complainant. In the circumstances of the case. I think the learned Chief City Magistrate was right in directing the parties to approach the Civil Court and get the dispute settled. It is not a case in which the Criminal Court can go into these disputes settled. It is not a case in which the Criminal Court can go into these disputes and decide. In any case, such a decision would have been subject to the decision of the Civil Court. It is true that the lorry will have to be retained in the Court's custody till such time as the dispute is decided. But the parties. or any one of them who approach the Civil Court can get necessary directions of the Civil Court if the property has to be preserved. I do not therefore think that the order of the Court below suffers from any infirmity and it calls for interference at the hands of this Court.
3. The revision petitions therefore are dismissed.
4. Revision dismissed.