A Magistrate has the jurisdiction to modify an order passed under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with the custody and disposal of property pending trial, if the previous order was ex parte.

GADGIL J.-The applicant has filed this application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akot, in Criminal Case No. 247 of 1977 whereunder the Magistrate has directed that the custody of the she-buffalo in question should be given to the complainant (Lilabai) in that case on her executing the requisite bond that the complainant would produce the she-buffalo whenever directed by the Court.

2. In order to understand the alleged grievance of the applicant, it will be necessary to state a few facts. On 13-12-1976 Baburao, acting on behalf of his mother Lilabai (present respondent No.2), filed a report with the police alleging that Ramrao Sampatrao Gawande has committed theft of the she-buffalo belonging to lilabai. On the basis of that complaint the police started investigation. The she-buffalo in question was seized from the possession of the present applicant Shamrao. The question arose before the Magistrate as to whom the custody of the, she-buffalo should be given. Shamrao filed an application on 18-12-1976 praying that the custody of the she-buffalo be given to him. He contended in that application that he had purchased the she-buffalo from Ramrao Gawande. On that application the Magistrate passed an order dated 22-12-1976 that the she-buffalo should be entrusted to Shamrao on the condition that he would produce it whenever directed or would pay a penalty of Rs. 1500. Thereafter respondent No.2 Lilabai filed an application requesting the Court that the custody of the she-buffalo should be made over to her. She contended that Shamrao had alleged that he had purchased the she· buffalo for Rs. 1500 when its price was Rs.2500. She also contended that the transaction thus is not of a bona fide nature at all. The learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing Lilabai as well as Shamrao, passed an order on 5-12-1977 that the she-buffalo should be given in the custody of Lilabai on her executing the necessary surety bond.

3. The above order was challenged by Shamrao in the Sessions Court, A kola, in Criminal Revision No. 68 of 1977. The said revision was dismissed on 19-5-1978 and hence this application.

4. It was contended on behalf of applicant Shamrao that the Magistrate, after having passed the order dated 22-12-1976 in favour of the applicant, had no jurisdiction to modify the order by directing that the custody of the she-buffalo should be with Lilabai. It was urged that the Magistrate has no power to review his own Older and that the only remedy of an aggrieved party is to go in revision against that order. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of The State v. Sova Rani1. In that case, certain rice was attached from one Chakrabarty on the ground that it was concerned in an offence of smuggling. Before the case proceeded till its conclusion Chakrabarty died. The Magistrate, therefore, passed an order dated 31-3-1969 that the rice be confiscated to the State. On 5-1-1970 the widow of Chakrabarty made an application to that Court that the rice should be returned to her. The Magistrate granted the application. The State took the matter in revision to the Sessions Court. That Court made a reference to the High Court. The proceedings had finally come to an end as the case against Chakrabarty abated on account of his death. The Calcutta High Court, therefore, held that the order of disposal dated 31-3-1969 was a final order and as such the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to review such a final order. We do not think that this case can be of any use to the applicant. The Calcutta High Court has made a distinction between an interlocutory order and a final order. This is what is observed in the judgment:

"The question is, can a Court set aside or review its own order which does not amount to a judgment? In this case a distinction has to be made between an interlocutory order and a final order. In respect' of a final order