ORDER : 1. The present petition has been filed being aggrieved from the order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Revision No. 132/2012 whereby the order dated 11.092012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Regular Criminal Case No. 542/2012 titled as State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram and Others, was upheld. 2. The facts of the case are that an application on behalf of the present petitioner for release of Vehicle Scorpio No. RJ-16-UA-0481 was filed before the learned trial Court but the learned trial Court while observing the fact that Teja Ram is the registered owner of the vehicle in question and M/s Milap Enterprises has no locus except to provide loan for purchase of the vehicles. This analogy was further upheld by the learned revisional Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the registration certificate itself indicates that the vehicle in question was purchased by Mr. Teja Ram under a hypothecation agreement from the present petitioner and this hypothecation was also registered in registration certificate by the concerned transport authority. He further submits that petitioner being a financier is entitled to receive possession of the vehicle in question because the loan installments were not deposited on time by the concerned registered owner i.e. respondent No. 2 Teja Ram. He further submits that both the Courts below have misunderstood the position of law and disposed of the application in a very cursory manner. He further submits that the vehicle in question is still lying unattended and the petition is required to be disposed of with a direction to learned trial Court for disposal of the vehicle at the earliest. 4. The aforesaid contentions are opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. He submits that after due investigation, a final report was filed before the learned trial Court and after examination under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. cognizance was taken and the case is pending before the learned trial Court but no update status is available on record. 5. On perusal of the orders passed by the learned Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that the learned revisional Court without perusing proper application of law as cited in the case of Kotak Mahindra Private Limited vs. Deepak Jain, 2012 RJT 1375 decided the Misc. 5. On perusal of the orders passed by the learned Courts below, this Court is of the opinion that the learned revisional Court without perusing proper application of law as cited in the case of Kotak Mahindra Private Limited vs. Deepak Jain, 2012 RJT 1375 decided the Misc. Petition on the ground that in the cited case, an FIR was registered by the Company and purchaser of the vehicle has defaulted in repaying the payment of loan. Herein, the matter pertains to disposal of seized vehicle during investigation, the same has been filed the year 2012 and is pending for last 11 years, thus, this Court is not aware about the present condition of the vehicle in question but as regards to court case is concerned, office has submitted a downloaded report from the E-Court Portal which indicates that the case is pending at the stage of evidence before framing of charge and the next date fixed in the matter is 31.03.2023. The proceedings further indicate that on several occasions, several adjournments were sought at the stage of evidence and so also at the stage of evidence before charge. 6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in land mark judgment passed in Sunder Bai Amba Lal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2003 SCC 638 has already laid down the principles for disposal of the seized vehicle by the learned Courts below and further observed that trial Court is duty bound to follow the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but as regards the present petitioner is concerned, the most important factor herein is that the petitioner is a finance company, which financed and facilitated the purchase of vehicle by registered owner and in case of non-payment of installments, release of vehicle to finance companies can be considered by learned trial Court and herein both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the present petitioner is not in dispute as regards to possession of vehicle is concerned but he is financier, who sought the custody of vehicle only when it was seized by the police in the criminal case. 7. Looking to the fact that the matter is pending for a quite longer time, this Court has inquired about the fact whether the vehicle is handed over to the registered owner or not but there was no specific reply in this regard. 7. Looking to the fact that the matter is pending for a quite longer time, this Court has inquired about the fact whether the vehicle is handed over to the registered owner or not but there was no specific reply in this regard. Moreover, after the service, the registered owner was not present before the Court below as well, therefore, it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the orders of both the Courts below and remand the matter to learned trial Court for disposal of the application for release of vehicle in question in a time bound manner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. 8. Accordingly, this Misc. Petition is allowed. The order dated 02.11.2012 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Revision No. 132/2012 and the order dated 11.092012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Regular Criminal Case No. 542/2012 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh consideration of the application for release of vehicle in question within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order afresh after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. The parties shall appear before the trial Court, either personally or through the Counsel before the concerned court on 01.03.2023. The court shall thereafter, proceed to hear the application for release of vehicle in question afresh without being influenced by any previous order and decide the same as per law.