JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 2. Heard Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Alok Dutta, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2, Mr. Harpreet Singh, the learned counsel for the O.P. No. 3 and Mr. Deepankar Roy, the learned counsel for the respondent State. 3. This petition has been filed for release of cash amount recovered by the police and challenging the order dated 19.02.2021 passed in Cr. Revision No. 198 of 2020 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 21.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ranchi in Cr. Miscellaneous No. 243 of 2020 has been confirmed. 4. Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the informant/petitioner is Assistant Manager and authorized person of SIS Cash Service Private Limited and has been authorized by the company to file this application and execute, sign and submit all the relevant documents on behalf of the company with respect to the present case. An amount of Rs. 4,07,53,000/- were looted while the transaction of the said cash was being done by the SIS Cash Service Private Limited and for that the F.I.R. was lodged and subsequently the said amount has been recovered by the police. The petitioner filed a petition before the trial court for release of the same amount in favour of the petitioner which was rejected. The petitioner preferred revision before the learned Sessions Judge for quashing of the said order dated 21.09.2020 wherein the learned Sessions Judge has also rejected the petition and confirmed the order, however, an observation by the learned Sessions Judge was made in favour of the petitioner wherein it has been observed that the petitioner may renew his prayer after filing proper authorization to receive the recovered money. Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner by way of referring to paragraph no. Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned counsel for the petitioner by way of referring to paragraph no. 11.3 to the agreement contained in Annexure-3 submits that in view of this clause the petitioner was required to indemnify the Bank and the petitioner has already indemnified both the Banks whose cash was looted and now the money is recovered and the petitioner is entitled for release of that cash. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent State Bank of India by way of referring to paragraph no. 8 of the counter affidavit submits that so far the State Bank of India is concerned the loss occurred by the State Bank of India is indemnified by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the Union Bank of India by way of referring paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit submits that Union Bank of India has also been indemnified by the petitioner. 7. Mr. Deepankar Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that since proper authorization was not filed in the concerned court that is why the revisional court has observed for renewal of the prayer after filing of the authorization letter in favour of the petitioner. 8. In view of the above facts and considering that the liberty is already with the petitioner and now the authorization letter has been annexed at Annexure-8 at page no. 76 and there is observation in favour of the petitioner by the revisional court, this petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner to renew his prayer in the light of the observation made before the revisional court in view of the liberty provided to the petitioner as authorized in favour of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-8. 9. In view of the above facts and considering the observation of the revisional court, Cr. M.P. No. 892 of 2021 is disposed of.