JUDGMENT S.B. Sakrikar, J. 1. The applicant, Stale Bank of Indore, has directed this revision petition against the order dated December 13, 1996, passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, Distt. Indore, in S. T. No. 458 of 1996 thereby rejecting the application of the applicant filed under Sections 451, 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for interim custody of the truck bearing registration No. CIF/1249. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the police, Kishanganj, Mhow, in connection with the offence registered at the police station under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, during investigations seized the aforesaid truck. The present applicant and one Radhabai under the power of attorney of the registered owner of the truck, Rajendra Yadav, applied for interim custody of the truck and filed separate applications under Sections 451, 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, before the trial court. The trial court on a perusal of the record and considering the rival submissions rejected the applications of the applicant-bank and also of Radhabai. Aggrieved, the applicant-bank has filed this revision petition against the impugned order of the trial court. 3. I have heard Shri Umesh Maheshwari, learned counsel for the applicant, on the question of admission. 4. Counsel submitted that from the papers filed on behalf of the applicant-bank it is not disputed that the truck in question was purchased on the loan sanctioned by the bank to the registered owner and in lieu of that the registered owner has hypothecated the aforesaid truck with the bank for the security of the loan. Counsel submitted that as the bank is the financier and the loan amount has not been repaid, the trial court should have ordered interim custody of the truck in favour of the applicant-bank. Counsel relied on the decision in 1985 MPWN SN No. 541. 5. On a perusal of the order and considering the submissions of counsel for the applicant it emerged that it is not in dispute that the registration certificate of the truck stands in the name of one Rajendra Yadav and in that registration certificate it is also indicated that the truck is hypothecated with the bank in lieu of the loan granted to the registered owner. On a perusal of the impugned order, it also emerged that the truck in question was alleged to be used in the commission of the offence of murder. The registered owner, Rajendra Yadav, is made the accused in the alleged murder case. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, the trial court rejected the application filed by Radhabai on behalf of Rajendra Yadav, registered owner of the truck, and also the application filed on behalf of the applicant. It is also mentioned in the order that the applicant-bank being the financier of the seized truck, is not entitled for the interim custody in preference to the registered owner of the truck in question. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, I do not find that the trial court has committed any error or illegality in passing the impugned order. The order of the trial court is on firm foundation and cannot be dislodged or demolished in exercise of revisional powers of this court. 8. Consequently, this revision petition has no merit or substance, I decline its admission and dismiss the same summarily without notice to the other side.