JUDGMENT

P.L. Bhargava, J. - This is an application in revision by Ansar Husain, who has filed a complaint against Chhittar Singh, Charging him with an offence punishable u/s 4()6 of the Indian Penal Code, in the court of a Magistrate of the first class at Etah. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant had purchased two bullocks from the accused, who is his tenant; that the bullocks were allowed to remain with the accused, who was employed to look after the complainant's cultivation ; and that after his dismissal the accused now refuses to part with the bullocks.

2. When the complaint was filed, the bullocks were in the possession of the accused. The complainant made an application to the court saying that as there was an apprehension that the accused might cause the bullocks to disappear, they may be attached by the police, and handed over to a Sapurdar. On this application, the court made the following order ex parte.

S.O. Kotwali.-Please take the bullocks in question in custody and deliver them in the custody of some reliable man who will produce them in the court when required. The applicant will bear the necessary expenditure.

3. When the bullocks were taken away from his possession, the accused appeared before the court and filed an application denying the allegations made in the complaint and praying that the bullocks be returned to him and he was ready to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 350. which was the estimated value of the bullocks. After hearing the parties, the court made the following order:

The bullocks be given in the custody of the accused applicant, provided be gives security for Rs. 350. He will bring the bullocks on every date.

4. The accused undertook to bring the bullocks in court on every date of hearing.

5. Against the order delivering the bullocks back to the accused, the complainant filed a revision in the court of the Sessions Judge of Etah ; but that revision was rejected. He has now filed this revision.

6. In the first place, it has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the order, which purports to have been made u/s 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could not have been passed under that section in as much as the bullocks were never produced before the court. In this connection, reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Ramchetsing Arjunsingh v. Deoji Kalvan AIR 1942 Bom. 42

7. The complainant, as we have already seen, had himself moved the court to make an order regarding proper custody, during the trial of the case started on his complaint, the bullocks, in respect whereof an offence was said to have been committed. The court made an expire order on his application and, after hearing the parties, the court made a fresh order regarding the custody of the bullocks. It is, therefore, not open to the complainant now to come forward and object to the order made by the court regarding the custody of the bullocks on the ground that the order was made without jurisdiction,.

8. It is true that u/s 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code an order can be made only when the property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which appears to have been used for commission of any offence, is produced before the court But, there may be cases where it may not be possible to produce the property before the court; e.g., where the property is a motor truck or an elephant. There may be other eases in which the court may, instead of directing the property to be produced before the court, direct that the property be put in charge of a Sapurdar or any other person; as in the present case. The expression "produced before any criminal court" in section 516-A of the Code ought to be so interpreted as to cover such cases as well. In either of the two cases mentioned above, when the court makes an order regarding the custody of the property during the inquiry or trial, the court assumes jurisdiction and control over the property and that is what happ