JUDGMENT : Banerji, J.:— The learned vakil who has appeared on behalf of the Crown frankly admits that he cannot refer me to any provisions of law which would justify the order complained of. It appears that four persons are being prosecuted upon charges of sections 420 and 206 of the Penal Code, 1860, It was stated that some of the accused persons had by cheating the complainant induced him to part with a certain sum of money amounting it is said, to Rs. 4,000. Two of the accused held a hundi drawn in their favour by Agya Ram Amrit Ram of Akola upon a firm in Bombay for Rs. 2,000. The Joint Magistrate, by his order dated the 20th August, 1903, has directed the firm “not to honour the hundi, and if any person presents it, to detain him and report the matter to the police.” I am not aware of any provision of Jaw under which that order could be made. 2. The learned District Magistrate thinks that the provisions of section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code would apply to this case, and as the Joint Magistrate might have to deal with the hundi under that section, he has made an order directing the hundi to he impounded under section 104 of Criminal Procedure Code. As regards that order it may first be observed that he was not seized of the case in which the hundi was produced and consequently could not order it to be impounded. No order for impounding the document appears to have been made by the Joint Magistrate before whom the trial is pending. Further, the hundi was not produced under the Code, that is in accordance with any of its provisions. Therefore an order for impounding it could not be made. I have consequently no alternative but to allow the application and discharge the orders of the Joint Magistrate, dated the 20th August, 1903, and of the District Magistrate, dated the 1st July, 1904 affirming that order.