( 1 ) ADMIT. THIS revision under Section 397 r/w 401, Cr. P. C. is directed against the order of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore who has rejected the request of the petitioner for return of the passport seized by the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 565 of 2001 of Ulsor Gate Police Station.

( 2 ) THIS revision arises under the following background : the petitioner who was an Officer in the Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore, till May 2001 took voluntary retirement from the service. After long lapse of time of his retirement, his former employer-Reserve Bank of India filed a criminal complaint in Ulsoorgate Police Station alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 409, 468 and 477-A, IPC. During the course of investigation, the I. O. seized the passports of the petitioner and his wife and certain documents pertaining to the immovable property owned by his wife and a motor car along with the documents pertaining to it. The petitioner and his wife thereafter made an application before the learned Magistrate invoking his jurisdiction under Section 457/451, Cr. P. C. seeking return of passports, motor car and the documents pertaining to it as well as the documents pertaining to the property owned and possessed by his wife etc. , certain contentions were raised before the learned Magistrate for passing an order of interim custody of the property seized by the I. O.

( 3 ) THIS was opposed by the State on the ground that the petitioner and his wife are likely to leave the country to escape the prosecution. The learned Magistrate upon consideration of the rival contentions, allowed the request of the petitioners in part and ordered release of R. C. book, Insurance, Tax card, passport of the 2nd petitioner and other documents such as possession certificate, sanction plan, licence, estimate and tax paid receipts seized under P. F. No. 120 of 2001 to the interim custody of the accused on executing an indemnity bond subject to certain conditions. Insofar as the passport of the petitioner is concerned, the Magistrate rejected his prayer.

( 4 ) THE impugned order is challenged essentially on the ground that the police officer has no power under S. 102, Cr. P. C. to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen. In view of this legal contention raised in this revision, the learned SPP is notified.

( 5 ) HEARD the arguments of Sri C. V. Nagesh for the petitioner and Sri H. S. Chandramouli learned SPP of the State.

( 6 ) THE learned SPP has taken a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the revision before the High Court without approaching the learned Sessions Judge. He has relied upon an unreported judgment of this Court in Vishwanath Chetti v. Vidya Ramdas Bijapur (DD 31-3-2001 ). Sri C. V. Nagesh learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal of this contention of the learned SPP submitted that almost all the High Courts in the country and the Apex Court have laid down the law on this question holding that there is no prohibition or bar to approach the High Court directly under S. 397, Cr. P. C. The learned counsel has also relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court, Allahabad High Court, Andhra Pradesh High Court, Jammu and Kashmir High Court and Bombay High Court. It is also his contention that though the I.-T. O. of the crime is always empowered to seize the property which is incriminating in nature either in proof of the alleged offence or some other offence, he has no power of the seizure of the property unconnected with the alleged offence or where no offence is disclosed from the seizure of the said property. The learned SPP has not seriously disputed the substance of this argument. However, it is his contention that the powers of I. O. cannot be curtailed insofar as the seizure of the property is concerned, specially, where the property seized by him while investigating the crime.

( 7 ) THEREFORE, the controversy which crops up before this