JUDGMENT

B. L. Yadav, J. - This revision is directed against the order purported to have been passed under section 101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short the Code). After bearing the parties on 4.5.87 the revision was dismissed, but detailed reasons were to follow. These reasons are set out below.

2. The sequence of events leading to the present revision may be set out below. The opposite party No.1 alleged to be the owner of Bus No. UTM 410, which was stolen from Farrukhabad lodged an F.I.R. on 12.1.81 It was alleged that while the Bus was standing near Bus Stand, Farrukhabad, it was taken by Suresh Kumar, Santosh Kumar and Siya Ram etc. The bus was in fact, seized from Mainpuri district. A search warrant was issued by the Magistrate at Farrukhabad. The said bus was recovered by the police at Mainpuri District from the possession of the present applicant, who was produced before the III Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mainpuri. A photostat copy of the registration certificate of Bus No. UTM 410 with its chassis and engine number was filed. The registration of the vehicle appeared in the name of the applicant. There appears to be no application made on behalf of the opposite party or the prosecution that search warrant was issued from the Magistrate, Farrukhabad District.

There was accordingly nothing to deny the version of the present applicant that the bus was registered III his name nor there was any objection about jurisdiction of court at Mainpuri, and on executing a personal bond of Rs. 50/00/- and furnishing two sureties in the like amount by order dated 19.5.83, the bus was directed to be released in favour of the present applicant.

3. Against the order dated 19.5.83, Pooran Chand Tewari, opposite party No.1 preferred a revision (being Criminal Revision No. 135 of 1983) before the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri. The present applicant who was allegedly holding registration in his name, was served and was represented. Being faced with difficulty, in view of the language of Section 101 of the Code as search warrant was executed at Farrukhabad and recovery was made within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate, Mainpuri, the present applicant (who was opposite party in revision before the Sessions Judge, Mainpuri), prayed for some time to enable him to obtain an appropriate order from the appropriate court at Farrukhabad. This prayer was accepted by the impugned order dated 12.8.83 and the present applicant was granted one month's time. The order passed by the Magistrate, Mainpuri, directing release of the bus was to come to an end on 12.9.83. The present applicant instead of getting an order from appropriate court at Farrukhabad, has preferred the revision before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant urged that in view of the provisions of Section 101 of the Code the Magistrate at Mainpuri has got the jurisdiction and not the Magistrate at Farrukhabad, hence the impugned order dated 12.883 cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, on the other hand, urged that Section 101 was clear in terms and it provides that when in pursuance of the execution of a search warrant at any place beyond the local limits of the jurisdiction of a court issuing the same, anything is found outside the jurisdiction of that court (issuing search warrant), a list of things recovered shall be prepared and sent immediately to the court issuing the search warrant. Unless such place is nearer to the place having jurisdiction therein, the Magistrate shall make an order directing the particular thing to be taken to the said court. Further in pursuance of the directions contained in the impugned order dated 12.8.83 in which an undertaking was given on behalf of the applicant, to obtain an order from the court at Farrukhabad, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad at Fatehgarh, has decided the matter, after hearing both the parties, by order dated 14.9.83 and held that as there was a dispute pending decision in Cri