ORDER
Pritpal Singh, J.
1. The petitioner Bhupinder Singh filed an application in Police Station, Sadar Thanesar, on 19-9-1985 (Annexure P. 4) alleging that his father-in-law Balkar Singh with the help of some persons was removing his household goods which he was loading in a truck on the pretex that these articles belonged to the petitioner’s wife. The police rushed to the house of the petitioner and seized the truck as well as the articles loaded thereon vide seizure memo (Annexure P. 5). On the application of the petitioner a First Information Report No. 194 under Sections 452, 148 and 149, Penal Code, was registered against Balkar Singh and his companions.
2. On 21-9-1985 the petitioner filed an application before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra (Annexure P. 6), that the household articles seized by the police may be given to him on superdari. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after obtaining the report of the police (Annexure P. 7), released the articles on supurdari in favour of the petitioner by an order of the same date (Annexure P. 3).
3. Subsequently, on an application moved by the police the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate cancelled the said orders of supurdari passed in petitioner’s favour vide an order dt. March 19, 1986 (Annexure P. 2) on the ground that during investigation of the case it has been found by the police that the seized articles belonged to the petitioner’s wife. The revision against this order filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, vide an order dt. July 5, 1986 (Annexure P.I) holding that “the impugned order was not revisable. The revision of the petitioner was also found lacking merit.
4. In the instant petition under Section 482, Criminal P.C. the order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Annexure P. 2) as well as that of the Additional Sessions Judge (Annexure P.I) are sought to be quashed on the plea that the supurdari orders passed in petitioner’s favour (Annexure P. 3) could not be cancelled in law because the cancellation amounted to the review of the order which is not permissible.
5. The order (Annexure P. 3) dt. 21-9-1985 by which the seized articles were given on supurdari to the petitioner was manifestly passed under Section 457, Criminal P.C, because concededly this property was not produced before the criminal Court during an enquiry or trial. Under this Section a Magistrate may deliver the property to the person entitled to the possession thereof or he may make any such order as he thinks fit regarding the disposal of the property. Once having passed an order under this Section the Magistrate is not competent to review the same. Section 457 in the new Code is equivalent to Section 523 of the old Code. It was held in Ghulam Ali v. Emperor AIR 1945 Lah. 47 : 1946-47 Cri LJ 32, that an order passed under Section 523 of the old Code could not be reviewed by the Magistrate. The same view was taken in Muneshwar Bux Singh v. State through Reghunandan Prasad AIR 1956 All 199 : 1956 Cri LJ 363. It was held that any order passed under Section 523 could not be reviewed by the Magistrate passing the order and it was open to the aggrieved party to seek redress in a higher Court. In the present case, therefore, the order passed in petitioner’s favour (Annexure P. 3) could not be reviewed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Evidently the additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dt. March 19, 1986 (Annexure P. 2) reviwed the earlier order by cancelling the same which he was not competent to do.
6. The contention on behalf of the respondents is that during the investigation of the case initiated on the First Information Report lodged by the petitioner the allegations made by the petitioner were found to be incorrect and so the police have applied for the cancellation of the case and the discharge of the accused. It is said that in such circumstances the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was competent to cancel the earlier supurdari order. In support of this contention I was referred to Kellson Motor Garrage v. C. L. Sharma 1975 Chand LR (Cri) 22. In that case the report made to the police by the complainant on investigation was found to be false and the case was cancelled. In such circumstances it was held that the only course open to the Magistrate was to hand back the possession of the seized property to the person from whose possession it was seized. This judgment is not applicable to the present case. When the impugned order (Annexure P. 2) was passed the case had not been cancelled nor the accused had been discharged. No doubt when the case is cancelled the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate will have the appropriate powers to deal with the seized articles in accordance with law. but till then during the pendency of the investigation of the case the order of supurdari passed by him under S, 457 of the Code could not be reviewed by him.
For these reasons the impugned order of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Annexure P. 2) is held to be without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. Consequentially the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, (Annexure P. 1), is also quashed.