Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for revision by Mohd. Isaq against the order of confiscation of a hand-written Kuran by the learned City Magistrate Jaipur. THIS book was produced before him in a theft case against Gopinath and others. The Magistrate came to a finding that the case of theft of the book was not prima facie made out against any of the accused. He consequently discharged all the accused by his order, dated 24. 11. 54. In the said order he said that the Kuran Ex. P.-3 be forfeited to the Govt. Against this order of discharge, the State filed an application for revision before the Addl. Distt. Magistrate, Jaipur. Mohd. Isaq applicant also filed an application for revision before the Addl. Distt. Magistrate for setting aside the order so far as it related to the forfeiture of the book and for its delivery to the applicant. The application for revision by the Govt. against the order of discharge and the application for revision by the applicant were heard by the same Magistrate but not simultaneously. The application filed by the Govt. was first disposed of. Later on the application for revision filed by the applicant came up for hearing and it was dismissed on the simple ground that the application for revision against the order of discharge filed by the State had already been dismissed and, therefore, the application for revision filed by the applicant was also liable to be rejected
(2.) MOHD. Isaq has now come in revision to this Court. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Magistrate ought not to have made an order of forfeiture of the book when there were claimants to that book. It was argued that according to the order of discharge itself the book in question was not one regarding which any offence appeared to have been committed or which had been used for the commission of any offence. The learned trying Magistrate, therefore, was not justified in making an order of forfeiture of the book. On behalf of the State, Mr. Chatterji has argued that u/s 517 of the Cr. P. C. the trying Magistrate had full powers to confiscate the book which was produced before him in the case and that there is no reason to set aside the order of forfeiture. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel. There is no doubt that the book in question came into the custody of the court during the inquiry of an offence u/s 457 read with sec. 411. The Magistrate u/s 517 has, therefore, powers of disposal of the book. The powers of disposal u/s 517 are by way of destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof or otherwise of any property or document produced before it for its custody or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which had been used in the commission of any offence. In the case of property which has been used in the commission of any offence, the court may very well make an order of disposal by destruction or forfeiture. In case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed the court may make an order for destruction of it if the circumstances necessitated it and it can also make an order of forfeiture if there appears to be no person from whose possession the property was taken during the enquiry or trial or if it is of opinion that return to such person is not proper. In the case of a property or document produced before the court or which has come into its custody during an inquiry or trial and which does not appear to have been used for the commission of an offence or regarding which no offence appears to have been committed, order of forfeiture should not be lightly made. If there is any person claiming to the possession of that property the court may either deliver the property to him u/s 517 (4) on taking a bond for its restoration to the court if the order made u/s 517 is modified or set aside on appeal. Where there is no question of appeal, the court may consider the question whether such claimant is entitled to the possession of the property and if it is so satisfied, it can deliver the property to him. It would be inadvisable to confiscate such property without deciding the question as to whether the person or persons claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof are so entitled or not. In the present case it was not held by the learned Magistrate that any offence appeared to have been committed regarding the book in question or that the book was used for the commission of any offence. All that was done was that this book came into the custody of the court during the inquiry for an offence u/s 457 read with sec. 411 I. P. C. The better course for the Magistrate, therefore, would have been first to find out if the persons claiming to be entitled to possession of the book were entitled or not. Of course the book was recovered from the possession of Bhanwarlal but he dip! not, raise any claim: to it, None of the accused also lay any claim to this book. However, there was some evidence in this case which showed that there were other persons who were claiming to be entitled to the possession Of this book. The Magistrate ought to have considered whether he could deliver the book to such persons under sub-sec. (4) of sec. 517, or he could deliver the book to them even without taking any such security if he were satisfied that the person or persons claiming to be entitled to the possession of this property were in his opinion entitled to its possession. I allow the application for revision, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate so far as concerns the forfeiture of the Kuran, Ex. P.-3, and send the case back to the learned Magistrate for decision regarding the disposal of this book in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. .;