JUDGMENT

FAZL ALI, J.:—This appeal by special leave involves a short point of law relating to the legal enforceability of a personal bond executed by 681 the appellant before the police for the production of the car belonging to him, which was alleged to have been stolen. The facts leading to the appeal fall within a very narrow compass.

2. The appellant appears to have bought a car No. USD 5317 from the dealers on the basis of a hire purchase agreement. He filed a report before the police alleging that Ran Singh and others had practised a fraud on him and had taken away his car and had not returned the same. On 3-12-1969, the police during the course of investigation recovered the car and handed it over to the appellant on supardnama on his executing a personal bond whereby the appellant undertook to produce the car in the court whenever necessary, and in the case of failure to do so, he bound himself to pay a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. By the time the matter came to the Court, two years had elapsed and on 14-9-1971, the Munsiff Magistrate, Meerut, called upon the appellant to produce the car, and as he was unable to do so, a notice was issued under Sec. 514 of Cr. P. C. for for-feiture of the bond. After hearing the appellant, the Magistrate ordered the forfeiture of the bond and directed the appellant to pay a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant went up in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge against the Magistrate s order. But the appeal was dismissed. The appellant met the same fate in revision which was preferred to the High Court. Hence, this appeal before us.

3. The short point taken by learned counsel for the appellant is that even accepting the prosecution case as it stands, the bond is not legally enforceable under the Criminal P.C., because it was not executed before a police officer. It is not disputed by counsel for the parties that as the occurrence took place long before the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the present case will be covered by the Old Criminal P.C., 1898. The Criminal P.C., contains separate provisions for the custody of property (1) during the course of investigation, (2) during the course of enquiry and trial, and (3) after the accused is convicted or acquitted. In the instant case, we are concerned, however, with the case while it was under investigation. Sec. 523 of the Code runs thus:-

"The seizure by any police officer of property taken under Sec. 51, or alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence, shall be forthwith reported to a Magistrate, who shall make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property to the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or, if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property."

It would thus appear from a perusal of this provision that the moment a police officer seizes a property suspected to have been stolen or which is the subject-matter of an offence, he has to report the matter to the Magistrate concerned and it is for the Magistrate to pass such orders as he thinks fir regarding the disposal of the property. The learned Counsel for the respondent, Mr. O. P. Rana, has, however, drawn our attention to Regulation 165 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in order to contend that this provision conferred clear authority on the police officer to take possession of the property seized and to give it on supardnama to any respectable person. Regn. 165 (ii) runs thus:

"(ii) Bulky property, other than livestock taken possession of under Section 25 of the Police Act v of 1861, attached, distrained or seized under Section 88, 387 or 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall ordinarily, pending the orders of the Magistrate, be left at the place where it was found in the charge of some landholder or other respectable person willing to undertake responsibility for its custody and