JUDGMENT This is a petition under section 482 CrPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a clear case of abuse of process of Court. He urged that a Car, Camera, Washing Machine and Frige were seized. The petitioner moved an application purporting to be under section 457 CrPC before the learned Magistrate. Learned Magistrate without disposing of the petition on merits rejected it on the ground that the offence was triable by the Sessions Judge and as such he has no jurisdiction. The petitioner preferred a revision petition and the learned revising Court rejected the petition on merits on the ground that it was alleged by the prosecution that the property was purchased by fraud. Learned counsel contended that there was no case with respect to the property seized, as it was the case for determination as to whether the property was acquired by fraud. Learned counsel contended that learned Magistrate ought to have disposed of the application on merits in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the property was acquired by fraud and as such it could not be released. I have considered the contentions. A perusal of section 457 shows that it provides for procedure by Police upon seizure of property and under this provision the Magistrate is empowered to order that the property to be delivered and make an order with respect to the property under the circumstances mentioned in the section. It does not make any exception with the cases which are triable by Sessions Judge. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is wholly incorrect. This aspect was not taken into consideration by the learned revising Court. Learned revising Court was swayed by the allegation by the prosecution that the property was acquired by fraud. As the question as to whether the property was acquired by fraud or not was not involved in the matter and this allegation was not sufficient for rejecting the application. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which a grave injustice has been committed. The petition has to be allowed and the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge have to be set aside. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that it is a fit case in which a grave injustice has been committed. The petition has to be allowed and the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge have to be set aside. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge are set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the application under section 457 in accordance with law on merits.