JUDGMENT : J. Das, J. - This criminal revision' arises out of the order dated 20-8-1987 passed by Sri S.K. Behera, Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Revision No. 133 of 1987 directing that the vehicle in question while in the police custody till the investigation is completed. 2. One Jao Main Kuin lodged an information in the police station that his Ambassador Car bearing registration No. OAX 1784 was stolen away by some unknown people. In course of investigation the police seized the Ambassador Car bearing registration No. ORP 2936 from the accused Piru Mohammed. Accused Piru Mohammed filed an application before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar, Cuttack for giving the seized vehicle ORP 2936 in his zima. The informant Jao Main Kuin contested the petition. Ultimately the S.D.J.M. passed an order on 18-7-1987 directing that the vehicle in question would be given in zima of the accused-claimant Piru Mohammed on execution of the bond as directed and subject to certain conditions. Against the order of the S.D.J.M. a criminal revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, Cuttack who took a completely different view of the matter and directed that the seized vehicle would remain in police custody till the investigation is complete. Against the order of the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, this revision petition has been filed. 3. The learned advocate for the Petitioner appeared and argued. None appeared on behalf of the opp. party although it is already 12.40 p.m. 4. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not correct and proper in the circumstances of the case and that should be set aside. 5. On perusal of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, I find that although the learned Sessions Judge was disposing of the revision petition, he has proceeded to write an order as if it is an original case before him. The jurisdiction of the revisional Court consists in examining the propriety, legality or correctness of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed or as to regularity of any proceeding of an inferior Court. The Revisional Court is, however, not to interfere with the finding of fact generally or lightly. Unless there is gross miscarriage of justice and perversity in the finding of the lower Court, the revisional Court cannot go into the question facts. The Revisional Court is, however, not to interfere with the finding of fact generally or lightly. Unless there is gross miscarriage of justice and perversity in the finding of the lower Court, the revisional Court cannot go into the question facts. In this case it is seen that the revisional Court has almost ignored the finding of the learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate and substituted his own finding on the basis of fresh material and ultimately passed an order which is quite inconsistent with the order of the learned S.D.J.M. Such an approach on the part of the revisional Court is quite improper and incorrect. 6. The learned Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate considered the case of both the parties and he found that the grounds taken by the accused-claimant are reasonable as the Ambassador Car ORP 2936 was seized from his custody and all the documents in respect of that car are in favour of the accused-claimant. On the other hand, the registration No. OAX 1784, was found to be a fake number. The learned S.D.J.M. did not believe the claim of the informant Jao Main Kuin and he held that the claim by the accused-claimant is consistent all through. Thus, the learned S.D.J.M. has taken a very reasonable view of the matter and he has also discussed all the relevant materials on record; In these circumstances, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate in revision. The learned Sessions Judge has committed a gross error in interfering with the order of the S.D.J.M. on certain extraneous consideration and hence the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. 7. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 20-8-1987 is set aside. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed