Honble SHARMA, J.–Instant miscellaneous petition impugns the order dated October 25, 1997 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Ajmer, whereby the learned court below observed that the order dated 6th May, 1997 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer passed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. was not an interlocutory order and revision petition against the said order was maintai- nable. In this misc. petition the petitioner Dhan Singh Bhati has prayed that order passed under Section 457 Cr.P.C. be declared as interlocutory order. (2). Brief resume of the facts is that on Feb. 7, 1997an FIR was lodged by the non-petitioner No. 2 Shri Tankesh Bhati that on Feb. 7, 1997 at about 8.00 p.m. the petitioner Dhan Singh along with other persons came to his house and forced him to handover the key of Maruti Zen GJ 7H 2753. Thereafter took away his car. Case under Section 384 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation the police submitted final report and has also recommended the enquiry proceedings under Section 182 Cr.P.C. against the informant. Thereafter the petitioner moved an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking custody of Car. The learned Magistrate vide order dated Feb. 19, 1997 directed that the custody of car be delivered to the petitioner. Thereafter another application under section 457 Cr.P.C. was moved by the non-petitioner No. 2 Shri Tankesh Bhati to the effect that order dated Feb. 19, 1997 was passed without hearing him and the petitioner did not place the correct fact before the Court, therefore the order be recalled. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application vide order dated May 6, 1997. Thereafter the non-petitioner No. 2 Tankesh Bhati filed revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Ajmer. The petitioner raised the preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of revision petition. The learned revisional court over ruled the preliminary objection and rejected the application vide order dated Oct. 25, 1997 which has been assailed in this miscellaneous petition. (3). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the orders passed by the learned courts below and the case laws. (4). Mr. Ravi Kasliwal canvassed that order passed under section 457 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate releasing the vehicle was an interlocutory order and no revision against the said order was maintainable. He placed reliance on Liyakat Hussain vs. Rajendra & Ors. (4). Mr. Ravi Kasliwal canvassed that order passed under section 457 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate releasing the vehicle was an interlocutory order and no revision against the said order was maintainable. He placed reliance on Liyakat Hussain vs. Rajendra & Ors. (1), wherein it was held that order passed under section 451 read with Section 457 Cr.P.C. was an interlocutory order. (5). Whereas the learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and contended that the orders under section 457 Cr.P.C. read with Section 451 Cr.P.C. are final in nature. Reliance was placed on Raju & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (2). In Raju & Ors. vs. State (supra) it was observed thus- ``Any order of moment, which substantially affects rights of the parties can not be called an interlocutory order at all. Right of a registered owner of a vehicle to use the same during the pendency of investiga- tion or trial is an important right and this right comes to an end only when the vehicle has been confiscated in accordance with some provision of law. It is no bodys case that any order of confiscation of the tractor and compressors have been passed in the two cases. This is true that Sections 451 to 459 Cr.P.C. empowers the courts to pass suitable orders, both regarding interim custody as also regarding final disposal of the property. But, such orders have to be consistent with the rights of the parties and exigencies of the case. Now, by refusing to deliver the tractors and compressors to the rightful owners, the learned Magistrate has, even though temporarily, decided a valuable right of the claimants, regarding custody of the tractors and compressors during the pendency of investigation/trial. Tested upon this touch-stone, if an order decides this valuable right even temporarily, it cannot be said that it is an interlocutory order in the sense, it has been used in Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. The interpretation of the expres- sion `interlocutory as given in Amarnaths case (3) or Madhu Limayes Case (4) would not embrace an order which decides such a valuable right of the claimants. Shakir Hussains case (5) and Raghunaths case (6) did not lay down correct law, in as much as they failed to take note of the aforesaid two cases of the Apex Court, which interpreted the expression `interlocutory order occurring in Sec. 397(2) Cr.P.C. To be more specific, both these judgments of the learned Single Judges of this court are judgments per incuriam in as much as they were passed without taking into consideration the law declared by the Supreme Court on the subject. In these premises, the orders of the learned Magistrate to hand over tractors and compressors in question to their respective claimants were not `interlocutory orders and hence revisions against these orders were maintainable before the learned Sessions Court and the Addl. Sessions Judge erred in treating these orders interlocutory order. (6). Looking to the interpretation of the expression `interlocutory as given in the case of Amarnaths case (supra) and Madhu Limyes case (supra), I am of the view that the order passed under section 451 read with Section 457 Cr.P.C. are not interlocutory in nature and revision against the said order is maintainable. (7). In Liyakat Hussain vs. Rajendra & Ors. (supra) the ratio propounded in Amarnaths case (supra) and Madhu Limyes case (supra) were not relied upon. I subscribe my view that the ratio propounded by this Court in Raju & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), it is not necessary for me to discuss the case laws cited at by in view of Amarnaths case (supra) and Madhu Limayes case (supra). (8). Thus the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Ajmer has not committed any illegality in passing the said order and I hold that the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Ajmer dated 6.5.97 was not interlocutory in nature. (9). Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition fails and is hereby dismissed.