Judgment :- 1. The dispute relates to custody of a bus KLN 97 of which the R.C. stands in the name of petitioner. During the course of investigation relating to Crime No. 351 of 1984 of the Tellicherry Police Station, the motor vehicle was seized. Ultimately, charge was laid for an offence under S.307 I.P.C. The allegation against the accused therein (first respondent herein) is that he drove the bus without licence and attempted to commit murder of some persons. The bus was produced before the Addl. First Class Magistrate No. II, Tellicherry. First respondent herein filed an application for custody. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application without giving any reasons. Learned counsel would say that the learned Magistrate was under the belief that since the offence involved is exclusively triable by Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to deal with the vehicle. Thereafter, first respondent filed an application under S.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Sessions Court, Tellicherry. Petitioner also filed an application. By a common order, the learned Sessions Judge directed release of the vehicle to first respondent herein on condition. The legality of this order is now challenged. It has to be noticed that petitioner herein is the complainant in the crime case. 2. Though both parties approached the Sessions Court under S.451 of the Code, that may not stand against either of them in the matter of challenging the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court in disposing of these applications on merits. On the registration of the case, the F.I.R. had been sent to the learned Magistrate referred to above. The vehicle was produced before him. Naturally, he has jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders in regard to the custody of the vehicle under S.451 of the Code. The Sessions Judge could not have exercised such an authority, either as an original court or as a court of revision. Revision would not lie since the dispute is one between the parties to the proceeding. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is one without jurisdiction and cannot stand. 3. Both parties are at liberty to move the learned Magistrate afresh for an appropriate order under S.451 of the Code. Revision would not lie since the dispute is one between the parties to the proceeding. In these circumstances, I am of opinion that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is one without jurisdiction and cannot stand. 3. Both parties are at liberty to move the learned Magistrate afresh for an appropriate order under S.451 of the Code. Learned counsel for the first respondent vehemently pleaded that till the learned Magistrate deals with the matter an interim order may be passed by this Court. It is one thing to pass an interim order while a proceeding is pending in this Court; it is another thing to pass an interim order of this nature while disposing a matter pending before this Court. Any such order, it appears to me, may prejudice one or the other party to the proceeding before the learned Magistrate. I therefore refrain from suggesting any particular arrangement. If the parties move applications before the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate will dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible after taking into consideration the fact that the motor vehicle is now lodged in the court premises exposed to the elements and without proper care. The M.C. is thus disposed of and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is quashed. Copy of this order will be sent forthwith to the learned Magistrate. Allowed.