JUDGMENT : Mr. Abhishek Prasad, the learned counsel appears for the petitioner. 2. This criminal revision petition was filed on 12.09.2015. 3. The criminal revision petition was listed for hearing on 05.04.2016 and thereafter it was listed on six different occasions however the matter was adjourned for one reason or the other. 4. On 14.02.2017 the following order was passed by this Court: “It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the document which was submitted by the petitioner with respect to release of the vehicle, the engine number and chasis number tallied with the vehicle which has been seized by the police. However after few months, the police has given a different engine number and chasis number which has led to rejection of the release application. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. is directed to take instruction and file counter affidavit within 3 weeks. List this case after 3 weeks under the heading 'For Orders'. In the meantime, let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the court concerned forthwith. Let the name of Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P be reflected in the cause list. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the learned A.P.P.” 2 Criminal Revision No. 1150 of 2015 5. On 24.03.2017 and 10.04.2017 this criminal revision petition was again listed, awaiting response of the State. Thereafter the matter was not listed for more than three years. On 04.12.2020 when this criminal revision petition was listed for hearing for the first time before me on the ground of personal difficulty of Mr. Abhishek Prasad, the learned counsel, hearing of the criminal revision petition was postponed. On 15.01.2021 again adjournment was sought by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Today, Mr. Abhishek Prasad, the learned counsel appears and states that inspite of his best effort he was unable to seek information regarding outcome of the confiscation proceeding. 7. The learned counsel expresses his inability to argue this case on the ground that he was unable to retrieve the case records from his chamber. 8. In view of the difficulties expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I would have granted one more opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, what I gather from the impugned order dated 06.07.2015 passed in G.R. No. 360 of 2014, I am not inclined to grant further adjournment. 8. In view of the difficulties expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I would have granted one more opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, what I gather from the impugned order dated 06.07.2015 passed in G.R. No. 360 of 2014, I am not inclined to grant further adjournment. In the order dated 06.07.2015 the learned Magistrate has observed as under: “Heard both sides and perused the case record. It appears that the petitioner is an accused in this case. It further appears that the present case has been lodged by the D.T.O, Lohardaga and charge sheet has been submitted and cognizance of offences u/s 419/420/467/ 468/471/414/34 of IPC has been taken by this Court. It further appears that a report was called for from the I.O of this case with regard to the release of the aforesaid Truck. The report has been received. It has been mentioned in the report that the Engine No. and the Chassis No. mentioned on the Truck is different from the documents shown by the petitioner. It has further been mentioned that the petitioner is not the owner of the aforesaid Truck and the I.O has got objection with regard to release of the aforesaid Truck. After perusal of the report of the I.O, I find that the I.O after detailed investigation has found that the Engine No. and Chassis No. mentioned on the vehicle are different from the Engine No. and Chassis No. as mentioned in the documents of the vehicle. The trial of this case has not commenced and the I.O has raised serious objection with regard to the release of the aforesaid Truck. Hence, I am not inclined to release the Truck bearing No. BR14G9804 in favour of the petitioner Ram Prasad Soni. Accordingly, the release petition dated 17.10.2014 filed on behalf of the petitioner Ram Prasad Soni is hereby rejected.” 9. In view of the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Magistrate and afflux of more than six years after the order under challenge in this criminal revision petition was passed, I am not inclined to interfere in this criminal revision petition and, accordingly, Criminal Revision No. 1150 of 2015 is dismissed. 10. Let a copy of the order be transmitted to the Court concerned through 'FAX'.