S. K. PHAUJDAR, J. Although the cases are different on facts, a common point arises in both of them and on that common point the present order is being recorded which will cover both these mat ters. 2. Crl. Misc. Application 2688of 1998 has been filed against an order of release of a truck which is being claimed by the present applicant and which was detained in case Crime No. 204 of 1998 under Sec tion 406, IPC, P. S. Mughal Sarai, District Chanduali. Learned CJM, Varanasi, was approached for an order of release and he by his order dated 16-7-1998, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 457, Cr. P. C. had rejected the prayer. 3. In Crl. Misc. Application 2694 of 1998 also it is a question of release of a DBBL gun which was seized in connection with case Crime No. 392 of 1997 under Sections 364-A and 368, IPC relating to P. S. Kotwali, Shamli, District Muzaf-farnager. The prayer for release of a truck as was made was rejected by the learned CJM, Muzaffarnagar on 4-7-98. 4. The common question that arises in these two cases is whether the applicants in both the cases should have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the court and not the inherent powers to seek the relief they have prayed for. It was argued that Section 482, Cr. P. C. gives ample power to the High Court to redress a wrong and "nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court. " The only concern of the High Court in exercising this jurisdiction, it was argued, was to see if it was necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr. P. C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. When a prayer is made under Section 457, Cr. P. C. before a court and an order is made either directing or refusing delivery of pos session of the property to any party, the order must be deemed to be affecting the right of a party and, as such, not an inter locutory order, though recorded at an in terlocutory stage. The language of Section 457 may be seen. P. C. before a court and an order is made either directing or refusing delivery of pos session of the property to any party, the order must be deemed to be affecting the right of a party and, as such, not an inter locutory order, though recorded at an in terlocutory stage. The language of Section 457 may be seen. This power could be exercised when seizure of a property by a police officer is reported to a magistrate under the provisions of this Code and the property is not produced before the criminal court. Upon these conditions, the Magistrate is authorised to make such order as he thinks fit respecting disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the pos session thereof and if such persons cannot be ascertain respecting the custody and productioned of such property. Once the persons so entitled to know the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate would think fit. The very lan guage of Section 457, Cr. P. C. requires that the Magistrate is to go to the question of entitlement of possession of a particular property and thus he is required to take a decision on the right of a party either this way or the other. There could not be, therefore, any doubt that an order recorded under Section 457, Cr. P. C, even though with any condition, is not an inter locutory order and, as such, open to the revisional jurisdiction of the sessions court or the High Court. 5. Learned Counsels submitted that mere presence of a right to agitate the revisional jurisdiction cannot be a ground for not exercising the right to invoke the inherent powers of this Court. On this point, two decisions were cited before me. 6. In a case of Brijendra Nath Agarwal and Pharmed Pvt. Ltd. , 1982 (19) ACC 84, an Honble judge of this High Court had been dealing with an application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. An order was made in a complaint case for search and seizure of the premises of the accused, and it was urged that the direction of search was violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and was against the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P. C. An order was made in a complaint case for search and seizure of the premises of the accused, and it was urged that the direction of search was violative of Article 20 of the Constitution of India and was against the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court found that there had been an earlier application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. which was rejected and it was held that although the principles of resjudicata were inapplicable to criminal proceedings as such, but when inherent powers of the courts were invoked to undo any abuse of the process of law, it was desirable that all the grounds should be taken and the mat ter should not be agitated again and again by a number of applications under Section 482. Cr. P. C. taking one ground after another in succession as that would itself amount to an abuse of the process of law. The application stood dismissed. How ever, an observation was made, "i may also observe that for exercising the inherent powers, there may not be a bar that any revision could be filed or has not been filed or it has been rejected and in suitable places such powers can also be exercised. From a reading of the whole judgment it appears that the observations under quotation was merely an obiter dicta as the observation was not made to meet any point agitated in the application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 7. Reliance was also placed on another decision of the Allahabad High Court, also by an Honble single Judge in the case between S. Subramanium and others v. Stale of U. P, 1995 Judicial Inter pretation on Crimes 866. Though the court was of the opinion in this case that Section 482 itself stated that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court, it clearly meant that the right conferred on an aggrieved person to file a criminal revision did not limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court. It was a case where the very order of summoning was under challenge and the court had found on the facts of the case that the materials on record did not make out a case at all and, accordingly, the court did not hesitate in exercising the inherent powers to quash the criminal proceedings. 8. Learned AGA took me through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Pepsi Food Ltd. JT1997 (8) SC 706 parallel to Allahabad Criminal Cases 1998 (36) at 20. It was a case where the applicants had challenged an order of summoning them in a criminal case and the High Court had not accepted the writ peti tion on the ground that sufficient remedy was available under the Cr. P. C. The Supreme Court was approached in a criminal appeal with a special leave peti tion. The special leave was granted and the appeal was allowed with certain observa tions which are relevant to the instant question. The Supreme Court had ex amined the powers of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Con stitution and also under Section 482. It was observed, "the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised invoking these powers. " It was also observed, "nomenclature under which petition is filed is not quite relevant and that does not debar the court from exercising its jurisdiction which otherwise it possesses unless there is a special proce dure prescribed which procedure is man datory. " Another observations of the Supreme Court in this case may also be quoted, "if in a case like the present one the court finds that the appellant could not invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226, the court certainly treat the petition as one under Article 227 or 482 of the Code. It may not, however, be lost sight of that provisions existing in the Code of revision and appeal but some time for immediate relief Section 482 of the Code or Article 227 may have to be restored to for correct ing some grave errors that might be com mitted by the subordinate courts. " 9. It is true that the High Court pos sesses powers under Section 482, Cr. " 9. It is true that the High Court pos sesses powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. as well as 397 thereof (revision ). But any single judge or a bench of Honble judges derive the power to hear the matter on the basis of distribution or determination of their jurisdiction by the Honble Chief Justice, as per the Rules of the Court. This court has been given the power under Sec tion 482, Cr. P. C. no doubt, but the powers under Section 397, Cr. P. C. have been entrusted to another judge. It may not, therefore, be stated that if at all this court for any reason found that the powers under Section 482, Cr. P. C. could not be exercised in the given set of circumstances, it would switch over to the alternative power under Section 397, Cr. P. C. 10. As regard the choice between two forums, under Sections 482 and 397, Cr. P. C. it is true that the inherent powers are not limited by the existence of any alterna tive remedy but the decision of the Supreme Court in Pepsi Foods case (supra), makes it amply clear that the in herent powers although have no limits, they must be exercised with due care and they ought to be resorted to for correcting some grave error that might have been committed by the subordinate court. When it is not a question of any grave error touching the very jurisdiction of the court, the parties should be asked to seek relief within the provision of the Cr. PC. , either in the appeal or revision. 11. In both the matters before this court, the questions are of propriety of the order denying release of certain property in favour of certain persons. The ques tions are not of any jurisdictional error exercised by the courts below and cannot be termed as grave error for which the inherent powers may be invoked. The remedy, in my view, in both the cases lie in a proper revision applications and the in herent powers could not be exercised in any and every case of mistake committed by the courts below. 12. Both the applications are, there fore, disposed of with a direction that it would be open for the applicants to con vert the applications as one under Section 397, Cr. 12. Both the applications are, there fore, disposed of with a direction that it would be open for the applicants to con vert the applications as one under Section 397, Cr. P. C. and if that is done within 3 days, such converted applications be placed before the appropriate bench as fresh ones. Application disposed of. .