Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93537 Court No. - 82 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2664 of 2025 Revisionist :- Uday Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Arvind Kumar Mishra,Devendra Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State. 2. The instant criminal revision has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Vehicle Release Application No. 162 of 2025 ( State Vs. Uday Chandra) whereby, the application for release of JCB bearing Registration No. UP73A- 8076, had been rejected. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has argued that from bare perusal of the impugned order dated 28.04.2025, it comes out that the learned Magistrate was of the view that he was having no jurisdiction to consider and decide the application filed for release of JCB, which had been seized for illegal digging of the clay. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the revisionist has placed before this Court a judgment rendered by this Court on 23.02.2024 in the Application U/s 482 No. 7071 of 2022 ( Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & another) and has submitted that this Court, in the said judgement, had laid down the law that if any machinery, in respect of illegal digging of clay, had been seized, the application for release of the said machinery can be considered and decided by the Judicial Magistrate, having jurisdiction over the police station concerned. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State though has opposed this criminal revision but has agreed that if this Court had laid down the law in its judgement, the trial court may again look into the mater in the light of the said law and decide the revisionist's application for release of JCB. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and I find that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi, while passing the order dated 28.04.2025 thereby rejecting the application filed by the revisionist for release of JCB, has not considered the law laid down by this Court vide judgement dated 23.2.2024 passed in Application U/s 482 No. 7071 of 2022. 7. Since the learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State have agreed that this Court may simply set aside the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 and remand the matter to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi to consider and decide the application filed by the revisionist afresh, this Court is of the view that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Kaushambi may reconsider the entire matter, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra). 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, without making any observation on merits of the case, this criminal revision is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.04.2025, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi in Vehicle Release Application No. 162 of 2025 ( State Vs. Uday Chandra), is hereby set aside. 9. The matter is remanded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi to consider and decide the application filed by the revisionist for release of JCB afresh, keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra) expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Gss Digitally signed by :- GIRAJA SHANKER SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad