JUDGMENT 1. - This S.B. Criminal Revision Petition is filed against the impugned order dated 9.5.2002 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui, district Dausa set aside two orders dated 21.12.2001 and 25.1.2002 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikrai and ordered to deliver the tractor and trolley on 'Superdigi' to respondent No. 2 Roop Narayan. 2. Relevant facts in brief are that one Adisal Gurjar submitted a report at police station Manpur on 6.11.2001 with the averments that at about 2-3 p.m. a number of persons including Sh. Man Singh had a quarrel with him and his brother Ram Phool and Ram Karan and inflicted injuries to them and took away the tractor and the trolley. F.I.R. under Sections 143, 323, 379/34 Indian Penal Code was registered. During investigation tractor No. RJ-29R-1097 along with trolley was recovered from the house of accused Man Singh. 3. During the investigation, an application was moved on behalf of the accused petitioner Man Singh for delivery of this tractor and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sikarai vide order dated 21.12.2001 allowed interim custody of this tractor and trolley to him. Thereafter an application was moved on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Roop Narayan before the learned Magistrate with the averments that this F.I.R. was lodged by his uncle and he is the registered owner of this tractor and trolley and no intimation was given to him before passing the impugned order dated 21.12.2001 and the accused petitioner Man Singh got this order by filing false affidavit in the court, therefore this tractor and trolley should be given to him on 'Superdigi'. This application was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.1.2002. The learned Magistrate observed that the investigation is still going on and the police has not arrived at any conclusion. 4. The respondent Roop Narayan filed a criminal revision No. 26/2002 which was allowed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui vide order dated 9.5.2002. The facts contained in the revision petition filed before the learned Additional Sessions Judge were that father of one Giriraj Prasad Meena was the registered owner of this tractor and the respondent Roop Narayan had purchased this tractor from Sh. Giriraj Prasad Meena two years prior to filing of this revision as the father of Giriraj Prasad Meena had expired. Thereafter this accused petitioner along with other co-accused took away this tractor by force. Giriraj Prasad Meena two years prior to filing of this revision as the father of Giriraj Prasad Meena had expired. Thereafter this accused petitioner along with other co-accused took away this tractor by force. The learned Judge came to this conclusion that father of Giriraj Prasad Meena was the registered owner of this tractor. The registered owner died, hence Sh. Giriraj Prasad Meena got his name entered in the registration certificate and thereafter he sold this tractor to respondent Roop Narayan and the name of Roop Narayan was got entered in the registration certificate. It was further observed that according to Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, publication of 15 days notice is required prior to transfer of the name in the registration certificate but the name of Roop Narayan was entered by way of transfer before completion of 15 days, hence on this technical ground the name of Roop Narayan was deleted from the registration certificate. The learned Judge further observed that apart from this factual position, the police after investigation came to this conclusion that accused petitioner Man Singh has nothing to do with this tractor. Therefore, the learned Judge allowed this revision of respondent Roop Narayan and ordered to deliver this tractor and trolley on 'Superdigi' to Sh. Roop Narayan on condition of furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and surety of the like amount. The accused petitioner Sh. Man Singh has come before this Court against this order. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this tractor was sold to him by Giriraj Prasad Meena and respondent Roop Narayan has no interest in this tractor. It was also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that a civil suit has already been filed by petitioner Sh. Man Singh against five defendants including Roop Narayan and Giriraj Prasad Meena with a prayer that the registration of this tractor may be done in his favour. An application for temporary injunction was also filed and Giriraj Prasad Meena in his reply to that application admitted that he sold this tractor to accused petitioner and thus the Magistrate rightly delivered this tractor to accused petitioner. An application for temporary injunction was also filed and Giriraj Prasad Meena in his reply to that application admitted that he sold this tractor to accused petitioner and thus the Magistrate rightly delivered this tractor to accused petitioner. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 contended that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bandikui as respondent Roop Narayan was a bonafide purchaser of this tractor and his name was also entered in the registration certificate, though the same was cancelled on technical ground as stated here-in-above and the police also came to this conclusion that the accused petitioner has nothing to do with this tractor. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and find that the learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the material available on the record and arrived at a conclusion which does not require any interference from this Court. In reply of T.I. application by Giriraj Prasad Meena, he has not specifically admitted this fact that he sold this tractor to Sh. Man Singh. Sh. Man Singh has not produced any sale letter or documents. Therefore, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order dated 9.5.2002, hence this revision, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******