The Magistrate's power under Section 523 Cr. P.C. is limited to finding which party is entitled to the possession of the property seized by the police. He has no power to decide a dispute about the title to the property.

This is a criminal revision petition filed by Khuraijam Jugeswar Singh of Terakeithel Yambem Leikai and Wahengbam Nodiachand Singh of Wahengbam leikai respectively under Section 439 read with Section 561-A Cr. P.C., to set aside the order of Shri C. Upendra Singh, Magistrate First Class Imphal dated 2-4-1966 passed in F.I.R. Case No. 281 (11) 65 of Lemphel Police Station starting Criminal Misc. Case No. 42 of 1966 to decide the dispute as to who is entitled to possession of the seized cow.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows :

(a) The first respondent Chanambam Ongbi Tamu Devi of Uripok Khoisnam Leikai gave a report (vide Ext. A/1) dated 18-11-1965 to the Circle Inspector of the Police Station, Lamphel, alleging that she lost a cow about 2 weeks prior to 18-11-1965, that on 18-11-1965 she learnt that the cow was in possession of the first petitioner Khuraijam Jugeswar Singh, and that when she asked him to return it he refused to do so stating that he purchased it from the second petitioner W. Nodiachand Singh. The Police arrested the first petitioner and seized the cow from his possession. The Police p roduced the first petitioner before Shri C. Upendra Singh, Magistrate First Class, who remanded him on 18-11-1965. The second petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Case No. 73 of 1965 to allow him to keep the cow in his custody during the pendency of the case. The first respondent also filed a similar petition (to permit her to keep the cow in her possession) under the oral direction of Shri C. Upendra Singh, Magistrate First Class. The latter forwarded her petition to the Police Station for report, without registering it. The Police submitted a report that the second petitioner might have the custody of the cow. The Magistrate added the first respondent as a party to Criminal Misc. Case No. 73 of 1965 and did not deliver possession of the cow to the 2nd petitioner.

(b) Criminal Misc. Case No. 73 of 1965 underwent a number of adjournments. It was posted to 8-12-1965. The second petitioner filed a petition as per Ext. A/2, enclosing a medical certificate (vide Ext, A/3) for adjournment. The Magistrate adjourned the case to 1-1-1966 and the Bench Clerk gave a slip to the petitioner mentioning 1-1-1966 as the date to which the case was adjourned (vide Ext. A/4). But, the Magistrate disposed of the case on 10-12-1965, as per Ext. A/6, allowing the first respondent to keep the seized cow in her possession, on her executing a bond for Rupees 500- with a surety for a like amount undertaking that she would produce the cow into the Court whenever directed by the Court.

(c) On 1-1-1966, the second petitioner appeared in the Court of the Magistrate. But, to his surprise he was told that the case was already disposed of on 10-12-1965 and that the first respondent was allowed to be in possession of the cow.

(d) On 31-12-1965, the investigating Officer submitted a final report, as per Ext. A/7 under Section 173 Cr. P.C. stating that the dispute was of a civil nature, that the first petitioner should be discharged from the liability of the bail bond and that the cow should be returned to him. The Magistrate passed an order on 2-4-1966 as per Ext A/8 acting upon the report of the investigating officer and discharged the first petitioner. But instead of passing an order for returning the cow to him the Magistrate passed an order that he decided to start a Criminal Misc. Case, under section 523 Cr. P.C. to determine the question as to who is entitled to the possession of the cow.

(e) Subsequently, the Magistrate addressed the Sessions Judge Manipur to transfer the case from his file to the file of another Magistrate, as the first respondent is closely related to him. The Sessions Judge transferred the case to the Court of the 3rd Munsiff-Magistrate and Judicial Misc. Case No. 42 of 1966, started by Shri C. Upendra Singh, Munsiff-Magistrate (II), is thus now pending in the Court of the Munsiff-Magistrate (III).

3. The contention of the petition