JUDGMENT

D.N. Roy, J. - This application in revision is by Rampal against an order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ghaziabad passed on 1-12-1955, giving the custody of certain bullocks to Hirdan Singh. A revision was filed against that order before the learned Sessions Judge but it was rejected by him on 19-1-1956, on the ground that the order delivering the bullocks to Hirdan Singh appears to be justified in the circumstances of the case.

2. The first point which has been contended on behalf of the applicant is that when the Magistrate had passed an order on 22-1-55, directing that the bullocks be given to the custody of Rampal on taking security from him in the sum of Rs. 1 500/- that order became final and it was not open to the Magistrate to supersede that order subsequently on 1-12-1955, by which he directed that the bullocks be given to Hirdan Singh on the furnishing of proper security. It has next been contended that the Sub-Divisonal Magistrate was not competent to review the earlier order of 22-1-(sic).

3. Narain Singh and Rampal pre related to each other. On 28-10-1955 a marpit took place. In connection with that marpit one report was lodged by Udai Singh, who contended that Rampal and others had raided his residence and had attacked him with lathis. Another report was lodged by Rampal to the effect that Narain Smgh and others had invaded his gher and attacked him with lathis. The police challanned Rampal and certain others Under Sections 326, and 325 and certain other sections of the IPC but submitted a final report in the case against Udai Singh and others including Narain Singh. It was in connection with investigation in the case of State v. Udai Singh and Ors. that the police had recovered two bullocks from Hirdan Singh. Before the submission of the final report the police sought the advice of the Magistrate in connection with these two bullocks and the. Magistrate obviously in his advisory capacity passed the following order on 22-1-1955:

Seen the report and considered the facts. As according to S.O. the bullocks prima-facie belonged to Rampal so they may be given to his custody on taking security from him for Rs. 1,500/- for precaution in case if necessary.

4. The police submitted the final report in the case aforesaid on 8-2-1955, and thereafter a complaint was lodged by Rampal in connection with the same matter. Several applications were made by Narain Singh for the custody of the bullocks. Ultimately the Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered the whole question on 1-12-1955. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that the bullocks after submission of the final report in the investigation in which they had been recovered by the police must be restored to the person from whom they were recovered i.e., Hirdan Singh, and that Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages an order to that effect and the earlier order dated 22-1-1955 did not preclude him from directing that the bullocks should be restored to the possession of Hirdan Singh.

5. Appearance has been entered in the present matter by the applicant as also by the State, and further on behalf of Hirdan Singh and Narain Singh and counsel have been heard. Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not specifically refer to Section 550 but it refers to those circumstances of seizure which are mentioned in Section 550. Where therefore the property is seized u/s 165 and not u/s 550 of the Code, its disposal is not governed by Section 523; and if the order disposing of the property cannot be passed under any other provision of the Code, the order not one passed under the Code and must be treated as an administrative or an executive order. If the order is treated as one passed u/s 523 of the Code, Section 523 does not contemplate any inquiry by a Magistrate though he may have to find out which person is entitled to the possession, and it does not follow that he must hold some sort of an enquiry. The legislature assumes that whatever informat