ORDER : Instant application has been filed challenging the order of the court of Sri Vishal Srivastava, the then J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribagh in G.R. No. 2028/2001 as well as the order of the Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh dated 15.01.2010 passed in Cr.Rev. No. 229/2009 by which both the courts have dismissed the prayer of petitioner for release of iron scrap in his favour. 2. The fact of the case is that the F.I.R. being Hazaribagh, Barkatha P.S. case no. 66/2001 dated 29.08.2001 was filed against the accused persons including this petitioner by which truck loaded with iron scrap were seized. After investigation chargesheet was submitted in this case. The further case is that this petitioner prayed for release of this iron scrap in his favour but the Court of C.J.M., Hazaribagh passed order dated 23.05.2003 rejecting his prayer thereafter he approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh in revision but the same was also dismissed. The petitioner approached this Court in Cr. M.P. No.997/2003 claiming himself the owner of the seized iron scrap, which was purchased from Calcutta on payment of tax but the High Court after considering the matter dismissed the same vide order dated 12.08.2004. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier prayer for release of iron scrap was preferred while the matter was not concluded but now after conclusion of trial this accused has been acquitted by the court of Sri Vishal Srivastava, the then J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribagh by terms of the Judgment dated 13.08.2009. He further submitted that after the acquittal of this petitioner he renewed his prayer for release of iron scrap in his favour but the Court of Sri Vishal Srivastava, the then J.M. 1st Class, Hazaribagh again rejected his prayer by terms of order dated 16.09.2009 holding that even the petitioner acquitted from the case but it does not mean that he is the real owner of the seized iron scrap and also considered that the prayer for release was also rejected by the High Court. Aggrieved by that order this petitioner approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh numbered as Cr. Rev. 229/2009 but the Revisional Court also dismissed his prayer. Against these two orders, instant application has been preferred. Aggrieved by that order this petitioner approached the Court of Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh numbered as Cr. Rev. 229/2009 but the Revisional Court also dismissed his prayer. Against these two orders, instant application has been preferred. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the seized scrap was purchased by him after due payment and he has also submitted those receipts but the court have failed to consider that after recording of acquittal the subject matter of seizure iron scraps could have been released in favour of this petitioner. 4. Mr. Nehru Mahto, A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed and submitted that on the basis of receipts of purchase of iron scrap were agitated earlier before the trial court as well as Revisional Court and lastly before the Hon'ble High Court, but all the Courts have recorded that after verification it was found that those factories were found closed and the document/receipts issued by consigner firms were also found closed and nonexistent. After acquittal this accused has again renewed his prayer for release of iron scrap on the basis of those same receipts which were issued by the nonexistent firm and the court of Judicial Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge again rejected his prayer and refused to release iron scrap in his favour. 5. Considering the above pleadings of the parties as well as the materials brought on record as also the certified copy of order passed in Cr.M.P. No.997/2003 dated 12.08.2014, it appears that on the basis of the receipts issued from nonexistent firms prayer for release of iron scraps were renewed again but the court below did not choose to release the same. On the earlier occasion also this court in Cr.M.P. No.997/2003 has found those firms closed and nonexistent and rejected the prayer of petitioner therefore, on the same basis of receipts issued from nonexistent firms prayer for release of iron scraps cannot be entertained at this stage also. 6. In the result there is no occasion to interfere in the impugned order which has been challenged herein. 7. Instant application stand dismissed.