Kuppuswami Ayyar, J.

1. The petitioner claims to be the owner of a cart which has been directed to be confiscated by the order of the Magistrate (the Fourth Presidency Magistrate) in C.G. No. 1305 of 1943. The accused in this case was charged under Section 65 of the City Police Act in connection with some hides which he was found carrying in a cart. It was suspected that the hides were either stolen property or property fraudulently obtained and since he did not explain how he came to be in possession of them he was convicted under Section 65 of the City Police Act. While convicting him the cart as well as the hides were directed to be confiscated. He was charged only in respect of the hides and not in respect of the cart, but all the same the Magistrate has directed the confiscation of the cart as well. The petitioners case is that the cart belongs to him and that he hired it to the accused and therefore the order of confiscation will not be binding on him and wants the cart to be delivered over to him. The learned Crown Prosecutor is not able to point out any other provision of law for justifying this order of confiscation except Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.