JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — This writ application has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Crl.Revision No.49 of 2005 dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner purchased a Tata 608 Mini Bus bearing Registration No.OR-14A-4743 from one Aftab Alli, who was the original registered owner of the Mini Bus and whose name was in the Registration Certificate. It is alleged that the finance company, namely; Binayak Finance with the help of some persons tried to take over the physical posses¬sion of the bus. Consequently, Criminal Case bearing C.T. No.3124 of 2004 was instituted in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Sambal¬pur arising out of Sambalpur Town P.S. Case No.197 on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner and the police seized the bus. Thereafter the finance company moved for release of the bus in their favour. The Investigating Officer directed release of the bus in favour of the finance company. But subsequently, on the intervention of the supervising Police Officer it was brought back from the possession of the finance company and released in favour of the petitioner, on which the financier filed a Criminal Misc. Case No.165 of 2004 before the S.D.J.M., Sambalpur u/s. 457, Cr.P.C. The petitioner also moved a similar application, which was registered as Crl. Misc. Case No.171 of 2004. After hearing both the parties, learned S.D.J.M. directed release of the bus in favour of the petitioner, which was challenged by the finance company in Crl. Revision No.48/21 of 2004-05. It was heard by the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Sambalpur and disposed of vide judgment and order dated 31.8.2005 allowing the revision and remanding the matter to the S.D.J.M., Sambalpur for rehearing. Thereafter learned S.D.J.M. passed an order on 7.10.2005 directing release of the bus in favour of the financi¬er, against which the above mentioned criminal revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, which was dismissed by the order impugned in this writ petition. 3. Thereafter learned S.D.J.M. passed an order on 7.10.2005 directing release of the bus in favour of the financi¬er, against which the above mentioned criminal revision was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur, which was dismissed by the order impugned in this writ petition. 3. While dismissing the revision learned Sessions Judge has observed that the finance company had invested a sum of Rs.3 lakhs for the bus in question and it is yet to get back its money and if the bus is taken away by the petitioner, the oppo¬site party would not be in a position to realise its dues. Further it has been observed by he learned Sessions Judge that the jurisdiction of the revisional Court is very much limited and the revisional Court can interfere only when the inferior Crimi¬nal Court exercises its jurisdiction with material irregularity or exceeds its jurisdiction or exercises its jurisdiction in such a manner that it causes miscarriage of justice. 4. First of all, it is to be seen whether the power of a revisional Court is only confined to the jurisdictional error or beyond that. In this regard, the provision of Section 397(1), Cr.P.C. is liable to be perused, which provides that the High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any pro¬ceeding before any criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sen¬tence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court. Therefore, in the crimi¬nal matters, revisional jurisdiction of the Court is not confined to the jurisdictional error only, but it can make a scrutiny of the order to see its correctness, legality or propriety. 5. Therefore, in the crimi¬nal matters, revisional jurisdiction of the Court is not confined to the jurisdictional error only, but it can make a scrutiny of the order to see its correctness, legality or propriety. 5. Now, in respect of the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge that the finance company has invested Rs.3,00,000/- for purchase of the bus in question and is yet to get back its money and if the bus is taken away by the petitioner the financier would not be in a position to realise its dues, it is to be observed that while making such observation it was necessary for the learned Sessions Judge to consider the provi¬sions of Section 51 of the Motor Vehicles Act as in the matter of hire-purchase of the vehicle and its registration, statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are to be followed. Section 51 provides as follows :- “Where an application for registration of a Motor Vehicle which is held under a hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement is made, the registering authority shall make an entry in the certificate of registration regarding the existence of the said agreement.” 6. In this case the allegation of the petitioner is that neither in the registration certificate nor in the records of the R.T.O. there is any entry that the vehicle is held under any hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement. The relevant questions are whether in absence of any such entry in the cer¬tificate of registration, the original owner was free to sell or transfer the vehicle to any other person or not and whether in absence of such entry in the certificate of registration, the hire-purchase, lease or hypothecation agreement is binding upon the Regional Transport Officer or the Regional Transport Authori¬ty or not. As the above questions have not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the revision, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration. 7. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sambalpur in Criminal Revision No.49 of 2005 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the learned Sessions Judge with the direction to restore the criminal revision to its file and dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the observation made above, after providing opportunity of hearing to the con¬cerned parties. 8. 8. Since learned counsel for the parties are present, it is directed that to enable the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the matter at an early date, the parties are to appear before the learned Sessions Judge on 14th February, 2007. It will be open for the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the criminal revision on that date or fix any other date/dates for disposal of the same. A. K. PARICHHA, J., I agree. Petition allowed in part.