JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This application is directed against the order dated 6-6-1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Criminal Revision No. 49/17 of 1996 thereby confirming the order dated 12-8-1996 passed by the learned S.D.J.M.. Titilagarh in G.R. Case No. 160 of 1996. 2. The brief fact leading to this application is that the opposite party No. 1 lodged a written report before the O.I.C.. Titilagath Police Station against the present Petitioners alleging theft of buffaloes, bullock cart and wooden materials on 25-5-1996 and ultimately came to know that the buffaloes and other materials were with the accused i.e. the present Petitioners.Subsequently, the matter was informed to the villagers and ultimately, the members of the village club directed the accused- Petitioners to return the theft articles. As the opposite party No. 1 could not get back his materials i. e. the buffaloes, bullock cart and wooden materials, lodged on F.I. R. being registered as Titilagarh P.S. Case No. 68 of 1996 u/s 379/34, I.P.C. corresponding to G.R. Case No. 1160 of 1996 on the file of learned S.D.J.M., Titilagarh. During course of investigation, the aforesaid theft artic1es were seized from the possession of the Petitioners and were kept in zima of one Gopinath Kumbhar of village Ranabandh. 3. Opposite party No. 1 filed an application u/s 457. Cr. P.C. before the learned S.D J.M.. Titilagarh and an objection to that effect was also filled by the present Petitioners, who by that time were charge-sheeted by the police for having committed an offence u/s 379/34. I.P.C. 4. The main plank of objection of the Petitioners before the trial court was that the opposite party No. 1 i. e. the informant is not the owner of the seized property. There was no document before the trial Court to prove that he is the owner of the seized articles. Moreover, the articles being seized from the possession of the Petitioners they are entitled to get the zima of the same. One Mahabir Majhi also filed similar application u/s 457,Cr. P.C. stating that he is the owner of the buffaloes which was seized by the police on the report of the informant. Moreover, the articles being seized from the possession of the Petitioners they are entitled to get the zima of the same. One Mahabir Majhi also filed similar application u/s 457,Cr. P.C. stating that he is the owner of the buffaloes which was seized by the police on the report of the informant. Learned S.D J M. after hearing the parties by his order dated 12-8-1996 came to the conclusion as hereunder: In the present case after going through the petition filed by the Petitioner and the intervenor the objection filed by the opposite party accused, the argument put-forth by their learned Counsels and the decision cited at Bar. I am of the view that the Petitioners had shown good grounds to establish that he is the best person prima faciely to claim his entitlement to possession till disposal of the matter U /s. 452 of the Cr. P.C. Moreover, the learned Counsel for the opposite party accused and the intervenor has also not submitted a word regarding the entilement of possession of his clients over the seized cart and other wooden material. x x 5. Accordingly, the trial court directed the zimadar Gopinath Kumbhar to handover the seized buffaloes, the cart and other wooden articles to the informant Dasarathi Rana on proper receipt and under certain terms and conditions. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioners moved the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Titilagarh in Crl. Revision No. 49/17 of 1996. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge while disposing of the aforesaid revision, came to the following finding: Therefore, the conclusion, of the learned court below in the impugned order that prima-facie rightful possession of the informant ever the seized buffaloes was in favour of the informant-opposite party No. 1 and his direction for release of the same in his favour assailable. It may be mentioned that the learned trial court has taken due precaution while passing the impugned order in ensuring safe custody of the seized properties and production of the same at the time of need. Any observation on ownership and possession of the seized property in this order should not influence in disposal of the case on merit. xx xx xx' 6. Heard Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Miss Savitri Ratho, learned Counsel for opposite party No. I. 7. Any observation on ownership and possession of the seized property in this order should not influence in disposal of the case on merit. xx xx xx' 6. Heard Mr. H.S. Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Miss Savitri Ratho, learned Counsel for opposite party No. I. 7. Miss Ratho submits that second revision has been filed in the garb of an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure which is not maintainable. Be that as it may, without going into the question of maintainability and after hearing the matter on merits from both the parties, in my opinion, inherent power has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and only where such exercise is justified. Even this power is wide, it should be exercised in exceptional cases. 8. In the case at hand, I do not find any irregularity or infirmity in the impugned orders as the same have been passed after due consideration of the materials on record which require interference of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Case is dismissed. Crl. Misc. Case dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed