The revisional Court should be slow to interfere with an order under Section 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and should not revise it unless there is a glaring defect in the procedure or a manifest error on point of law.

JUDGMENT :

P.C. Misra, J. - This is a revision against the order dated 8-10-1085 passed by the Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Revision No. 130 of 1985 setting aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kujanga, in G.R. Case No. 237/85.

2. The relevant facts leading to this revision may be shortly stated as follows : Petitioner Nisakar Rout as the informant alleged that on 18-7-1986 Ms bollock was stolen away from his field He searched for the bullock and ultimately found it tied in the premises of opp. party No. 1, indramani Das. F. I. R. having been ladged.. by him, the police took up investigalion and seized the bullock from the premises of Indramani Das, opp. party No. 1. The said Indramani Das produced a receipt before the Investigating Officer evidencing his purchase of the bullock from Anam Rout, who is alleged fay the informant to be his adoptive father. The I. O. gave zima of the bullock to one Baman Charan Behera whereafter the informant made an application before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kujanga for possession of the bullock, the learned Magistrate, after considering the circumstances directed the Officer-in-charge Erasama P. S to bring the bullock from the zimadar Baman Charan Behera and give the same to the informant Nisakar Rout within a time specified in the said order. Opp. party No. 1 from whose possession the bullock was seized carried up the matter to the Court of Sessions Judge, Cuttack, in Criminal Revision No 130/85 alleging that the aforesaid order passed by this Judicial Magistrate directing possession of the/bullock to be given to the informant is thoroughly misconceived and claimed that the bullock should have been given to him as he is the real owner of the bullock in question. The learned Sessions Judge by the impugned order found that the present opp. party No. 1 has got a prima facie case in support of his clairn. However, the claim of Nisaker is doubtful. He therefore, directed that if the trial Court feels that the zimadar Banian Charan. Behera cannot take proper care of the bullock, then it is desirable to give the bullock in the zima of accused indramani Das, opp. party No. 1 against proper security.

3. The petitioner In this revision has urged that the revisional Court has gone wrong in entering into the controversial questions of fact which is beyond the jurisdiction of the revisional Court and has relied upon irrelevant facts and circumstances and has acted in a manner as if it was a civil Court deciding a question of ownership of the bullock in question. The learned Magistrate evidently exercised his jurisdiction u/s 451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in directing that the informant shall be in custody of the bullock. Under this section the Magistrate or the Revisional Court has no jurisdiction to investigate and decide the question of title and ownership of the rival claimant to the seized property. The said summary power to order custody or possession of the property under the said section is an Interim order pending conclusion of the enquiry or trial.

4. The learned Magistrate took into consideration the receipt seized from the possession of the present opp. party No, 1 by' the I. O. showing that he had purchased the bullock from the father of the informant on payment of Rs. 1400/- and also the receipt produced by the informant in Court evidencing the allegation of the informant that he had purchased the bullock on 20-1-1985 from Jairam Das of village Bhajana for a consideration of Rs. 1400/-. He also took Into consideration the fact that there has been some dispute between the informant and his father Anam Rout from whom the accused is alleged to have purchased the bullock Ultimately he found that the interim custody of the bullock should be given to the informant (petitioner) till the conclusion of the trial The learned Sessions Judge set aside the said order mainly on the ground that the claim of Nisakar Rout that he is the adoptive son of Anam Rout