Short Note : 1. The present applicant for revision is undisputedly a second one made by the applicant before this Court. For challenging the impugned order made by the trial Court, he had earlier filed a revision before the Sessions Judge and when the same was dismissed the present application for revision has been moved before this Court. 2. It would be significant to mention that while moving the present application, the applicant further moved an application for treating the same as one for seeking interference by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to the New Code of Criminal Procedure, sub-section (3) of section 397 prohibits the filing of a second application for revision if one had already been filed before any of the two Courts having concurrent jurisdiction, i.e. the Court of session or before the High Court. Held : After hearing the learned Counsel from both the side and on going through the order impugned with which interference is sought, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interference by invoking the inherent powers of this Court. By the order impugned, the truck in question, which is alleged to have been forcibly taken away by the accused applicant from the possession of the complainant has been seized and given in custody of the non-applicant No.1, who has executed a bond to produce the same before the Court as and when directed. Thus, by the order impugned, the non-applicant No. 1 has been appointed only a Supuratdar for keeping the custody of the property during the pendency of the case. 3. The argument on behalf of the applicant was that since the story of the alleged dacoity is false and frivolous and the accused applicant was retaining the truck for effecting recovery of the bill for repairing charges, there was no justification for keeping the custody of the truck with the complainant. It was also contended that the order impugned amounts to a direction of the trial Court to the applicant to produce the truck before the Court and the same is in contravention of the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India in asmuch as the present accused applicant cannot be compelled to produce evidence against himself. 4. It was also contended that the order impugned amounts to a direction of the trial Court to the applicant to produce the truck before the Court and the same is in contravention of the provisions of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India in asmuch as the present accused applicant cannot be compelled to produce evidence against himself. 4. After going through the copy of the order passed by the trial Court, as produced by the caunsel of the applicant, I find that there is no force in any of the contentions raised on behalf of the applicant. There is such direction by the Court to the applicant to produce the truck or any such piece of evidence against himself, which may result in contravention of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. The observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra (AIR 1954 Supreme Court 300) are relevant in this respect. There is no notice to the accused applicant to produce the truck. It is a case of seizure of the truck by the police officer. This act can neither be said to be an act of the accused person himself nor can it be said that he is being compelled to do such an act which may incriminate him. In the present case, the seizure of the truck is an act of the police officer and not the testimonial act of the accused in any sense. The fact of the case reported in State of Gujrat v. Shyamlal (AIR 1965 Supreme Court 1251) are quite different. In the said case, the prosecution wanted an order from the Court directing the accused himself to produce his own accounts written and maintained by him in a criminal case of his prosecution for the offence punishable under the State Money-lender's Act. Such a request to direct the accused himself to do the testimonial act against himself was held to be unconstitutional being in contravention of Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. 5. So far as the propriety of the order in question is concerned, it would suffice to observe that the question about the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the complainant are yet to be tried and decided. 5. So far as the propriety of the order in question is concerned, it would suffice to observe that the question about the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the complainant are yet to be tried and decided. As it is not disputed that the truck does belong to the non-applicant and does not belong to the applicant accused, it cannot be said that the direction given by the trial Court permitting the custody of the truck with the non-applicant No.1, who is admittedly the owner of the same, is such which may need interference by invoking the inherent powers of this Court. It may the ultimately the defence of the accused applicant that be that he had not forcibly taken away the truck but the same was already lying with him after repairs and he had retained it in exercise of his lien over the same for the recovery of the unpaid amount of repairing charges. But for the time being, keeping the truck in custody of the person, who is admittedly the owner of the property, cannot be said to be unjust or improper or causing miscarriage of justice so as to justify interference by this Court by invoking it's inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. AIR 1954 SC 300 relied on. AIR 1965 SC 1251 and AIR 1978 SC 47 distinguished. Application dismissed.