JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed the present revision petition against the order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sri Karanpur in Criminal Revision No. 14/2004 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has allowed the revision petition and has set aside the order dated 6.8.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Sri Padampur. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.6.2006, Maruti Car bearing No. DNB 6008 was seized by the police officials of Police Station, Gamurwali. It is alleged that the said vehicle was being driven by Mahaveer Prasad and he was not having registration certificate as well as driving licence. 3. The petitioner as well as Om Prakash submitted applications for release of car in question on supurdginama. 4. The learned Magistrate vide order dated 6.8.2004 released the car in question on supurdginama in favour of present petitioner Lekhram. 5. Against the order dated 6.8.2004, Om Prakash preferred a revision petition and the learned lower Revisional Court vide order dated 30.9.2004 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 6.8.2004. The learned Lower Revisional Court also ordered to release the car in question in favour of Sh. Om Prakash. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the registered owner of the car in question. It is also alleged that in the FIR filed by Om Prakash against the petitioner, the police has filed FR in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the vehicle in question has been seized under Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and being the registered owner, the vehicle in question should have been released to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the various judgments of this Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has stated that the order passed by the learned lower Revisional Court Is based on correct appreciation of facts as well as law and hence, the same does not require any interference by this Court. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the learned lower Revisional Court is not based on correct appreciation of facts as well as law. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. In my considered opinion, the order passed by the learned lower Revisional Court is not based on correct appreciation of facts as well as law. The learned lower Revisional Court has ignored the fact that the petitioner is the registered owner of the car in question. As per provisions of Section 207(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, where a motor vehicles has been seized and detained under sub-section (1), the owner or person in charge of the vehicle may apply for release of vehicle together with the relevant documents. 10. In the present case, Om Prakash is not the registered owner of the vehicle. That apart, the said vehicle has not been seized from Sh. Om Prakash, but at the time of seizure, the vehicle was being driven by Mahaveer Prasad. The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle. Sh. Mahaveer Prasad has not submitted any application for release of the vehicle. 11. For the reasons mentioned above, the present revision petition is allowed. The order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sri. Karanpur is set aside and the order dated 6.8.2004 passed by the learned, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sri Padampur is affirmed.Revision Allowed. *******