JUDGMENT 1. This was a rule calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate to show cause why his order directing the return of the two safes with money to Tchun Chun should not be set aside and an order passed directing that the money and the safe should remain in custody of the Magistrate pending the disposal of appeal in the civil suit between the Petitioner and the opposite party or why such other order should not be passed as to this Court may seem fit, on the ground that the order passed by the Presidency Magistrate does not appear to be one which he was empowered to pass under the law. Now It is perfectly clear that the present custody of these articles is with the Criminal Court owing to a mistake. The property was brought In the possession of the Criminal Court on the 27th March 1907 by an order purporting to be made under sec. 144, Cr. P.C, although It was really made by consent of parties and that order was that the room be opened out in presence of both parties and the iron safes be also opened out In presence of both the parties and a list made of the contents thereof and also of books and papers found, the contents of the safes and accounts be removed to the Court to remain in the custody of the Court. There was a further order forbidding anything that might tend to cause disturbance of public tranquility under sec. 144, Cr. P.C. That was the only order that could be passed under sec. 144, Cr. P.C, but the other order, by which we understand the consent order, was directed to remain in force for 2 months or until the decision of the suit pending before the Honourable High Court. Owing to a series of misunderstandings and to the fact that the civil litigation is still pending, these safes are still found in the custody of the Criminal Court and the keys which were received from various Individuals are also In the custody of the Court. This custody is wholly without jurisdiction and the only order that we have power to make in this case la that matters should be restored to exactly the same condition as the Magistrate found them in before he passed the order on the 27th March 1907. This custody is wholly without jurisdiction and the only order that we have power to make in this case la that matters should be restored to exactly the same condition as the Magistrate found them in before he passed the order on the 27th March 1907. What that condition is appears to be disputed. In paragraph 7 of the petition of the party who obtained the rule certain facts are stated as to the padlocks on the door of the room and four padlocks on one of the safes and as to the padlocks on a smaller safe. There is an affidavit of the other side partially traversing these facts. But we are unable to go into any question of fact or into any question of the right or title between the parties. We can only direct the Chief Presidency Magistrate to put things back in the position they were in on the day he passed the order and how that position affects the rights of either party we are not concerned. 2. The rule will therefore be made absolute in these terms--that the Presidency Magistrate do proceed forthwith--after such enquiry as may be necessary as to the persons who had the keys to put back the safes locked in the same manner as they were locked in the 27th March 1907 into the room in the church where they were found and, that the room be locked in the same manner as it was on that day and that the keys be given to the persons from whom the Court received them. If there are any expenses incurred la the removal of the safes they will be borne by both the parties.