B.N.DASH, J. - (1.)In this application Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code'), the sole point for determination is whether after passing of an order Under Section 457 of the Code directing release of a seized property in favour of a person, the Magistrate can direct that person to produce the seized property in Court for the purpose of consideration of an application filed by another person with prayer for return of the seized property to him. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present application may be briefly noted.
(2.)THE motor -cycte bearing registration No. OIU -4222 was seized by the police on 18 -1 -1992 as an abandoned or unclaimed property. One Ramakanta Jena (opp. party No. ?.) was the original registered owner of the said vehicle. After the seizure, the petitioner Ramesh Chandra Jena filed an application Under Section 457 of the Code, registered as Crl. Misc. Case No. 14/1992, for return of the vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle had been sold by Ramakanta Jena to him on receipt of a consideration of Rs. 18,000/ - on 2 -10 -1991 and he had also sworn an affidavit to that effect on 3 -10 -1991. On verification of the R.C. book, affidavit and the money receipt produced by the petitioner, the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur passed order on 5 -2 -1992 directing release of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner on his executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/ -with an undertaking to produce the said vehicle as and when required by the Court. Having come to bow about such order, Ramakanta Jena filed an application on 17 -2 -t992 claiming return of the vehicle to him and after objection thereto was filed by the petitioner, the learned SDJM passed the following order on 9 -3 -1992 : 'Petitioner files hazira. Stranger Ramakanta Jena is present through his advocate. The petitioner Ramesh Chandra Jena is directed to produce the documents of this vehicle and the vehicle OIC 4222 (typographical mistake for OIU 4222) on 24 -3 -1992 for consideration of the petition filed by the intervenor, Ramakanta Jena. Call on 24 -3 -1992.' Being aggrieved by such order the present application challenging its correctness has been filed.
(3.)SHRI J. R. Dash, the learned Counsel for the petitioner con - tends that after passing of an order Under Section 457 of the Code directing release of a seized property in favour of one person, the Magistrate becomes functus officio and so, if after passing of such an order, another application Under Section 457 of the Code is filed by another person, he cannot, legally pass an order directing the party in whose favour he had originally passed the release -order to produce the seized property, Shri A. Mohapatra for the opp. party No, 2, on the other hand, contends that an order Under Section 457 of the Code is an interim order if such order is passed without hearing the party entitled to the possession of the seized property and as such the Magistrate continues to have jurisdiction to alter his previous order to give relief to the party really entitled to the possession of the seized property.