JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under Section 482 Cr. PC. The dispute relates to interim custody of three buffalows, which are subject matter of criminal case of theft. Surja is complainant. On 21-6-1980 an order was passed giving the custody of these buffalows to the Lassu from which the recovery was made. This order was challenged in revision application No. 63/1980 was confirmed on 30th October, 1980. Mr. Garg learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that Lassu has been made accused under Section 411 IPC, on 26-6-1980 and was arrested. According to him the custody of stolen property should not have been given to accused persons. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has mentioned in his judgment that whether the receipt and document produced by Lassu are forged or not as alleged by the complainant, would be a question of proof and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. He was of the opinion that since recovery was made from Lassu, no illegality has been committed in giving custody of these buffallows to Lassu during the pendency of the case. 3. Application under Section 482 has been opposed by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Lassu. 4. Having considered the submission of Mr. Garg, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for under Section 482 Cr. P.C. in this case. It is not in dispute that the recovery was made from Lassu. The Additional Sessions Judge has relied upon the decision referred to in his judgment, in support of his order of rejection of the revision, the question whether the custody of stolen property or property subject matter of offence should be given to one of the parties or to a third party, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and there cannot be a rule of thing that it should be given to the complainant alone. It has not been shown to me, had there any rule of law that an accused can never be given custody of property subject matter of offence. 5. I am, therefore, in agreement with the decision of the Additional Sessions judge that the question whether the documents are forged or not cannot be decided at this stage. In any case this finding of the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be vitiated requiring interference under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 6. 5. I am, therefore, in agreement with the decision of the Additional Sessions judge that the question whether the documents are forged or not cannot be decided at this stage. In any case this finding of the Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be vitiated requiring interference under Section 482 Cr. P.C. 6. Mr, Garg submitted that the buffalows were once given to Surja and therefore, there is no provision to review that order and give it to Lassu. 7. The record of the case shows that there is an indication in the letter sent to the SHO that buffalows be handed over to Surja. I inquired from Mr. Garg whether there is any order of the Court after hearing Lassu or his counsel for the same. Mr. Garg could not point out any order by which the buffalows were given to Surja, but there is a letter from the Court to SHO mentioning the same. From this letter all that can be inferred is that SHO might ought some directions or some application may have been made which may have been forwarded to the SHO with an order on it for giving the custody of buffalows to Surja. Admittedly at this stage Lassu was not aware of it nor any notice was given to him nor he was heard. That being so if an exparte order is passed, details of which are also not even on the record, that would not debar for passing a regular order after hearing both parties as has been done by passing the impugned order. 8. Mr. Narendra Singh on behalf of the non-petitioner raised a preliminary objection in case where a second revision is barred, order can not be challenged under Section 482 Cr, P.C. Reliance was placed on State v. Ram Narain Upadhaya, 1976 WLN 234 . I am not inclined to enter into these controversy and decide this point in this case. 9. Since I am convinced that no interference is called under Section 482 Cr. P.C. even on the merits of the case, this application deserves to be dismissed. 10. The application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******