JUDGMENT P.L. Bhargava, J. - This is an application in revision by Ansar Husain, who has filed a complaint against Chhittar Singh, Charging him with an offence punishable u/s 4()6 of the Indian Penal Code, in the court of a Magistrate of the first class at Etah. It has been alleged in the complaint that the complainant had purchased two bullocks from the accused, who is his tenant; that the bullocks were allowed to remain with the accused, who was employed to look after the complainant's cultivation ; and that after his dismissal the accused now refuses to part with the bullocks. 2. When the complaint was filed, the bullocks were in the possession of the accused. The complainant made an application to the court saying that as there was an apprehension that the accused might cause the bullocks to disappear, they may be attached by the police, and handed over to a Sapurdar. On this application, the court made the following order ex parte. S.O. Kotwali.-Please take the bullocks in question in custody and deliver them in the custody of some reliable man who will produce them in the court when required. The applicant will bear the necessary expenditure. 3. When the bullocks were taken away from his possession, the accused appeared before the court and filed an application denying the allegations made in the complaint and praying that the bullocks be returned to him and he was ready to furnish security to the extent of Rs. 350. which was the estimated value of the bullocks. After hearing the parties, the court made the following order: The bullocks be given in the custody of the accused applicant, provided be gives security for Rs. 350. He will bring the bullocks on every date. 4. The accused undertook to bring the bullocks in court on every date of hearing. 5. Against the order delivering the bullocks back to the accused, the complainant filed a revision in the court of the Sessions Judge of Etah ; but that revision was rejected. He has now filed this revision. 6. In the first place, it has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the order, which purports to have been made u/s 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could not have been passed under that section in as much as the bullocks were never produced before the court. He has now filed this revision. 6. In the first place, it has been argued on behalf of the complainant that the order, which purports to have been made u/s 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, could not have been passed under that section in as much as the bullocks were never produced before the court. In this connection, reliance has been placed upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in Ramchetsing Arjunsingh v. Deoji Kalvan AIR 1942 Bom. 42 7. The complainant, as we have already seen, had himself moved the court to make an order regarding proper custody, during the trial of the case started on his complaint, the bullocks, in respect whereof an offence was said to have been committed. The court made an expire order on his application and, after hearing the parties, the court made a fresh order regarding the custody of the bullocks. It is, therefore, not open to the complainant now to come forward and object to the order made by the court regarding the custody of the bullocks on the ground that the order was made without jurisdiction,. 8. It is true that u/s 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code an order can be made only when the property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which appears to have been used for commission of any offence, is produced before the court But, there may be cases where it may not be possible to produce the property before the court; e.g., where the property is a motor truck or an elephant. There may be other eases in which the court may, instead of directing the property to be produced before the court, direct that the property be put in charge of a Sapurdar or any other person; as in the present case. The expression "produced before any criminal court" in section 516-A of the Code ought to be so interpreted as to cover such cases as well. In either of the two cases mentioned above, when the court makes an order regarding the custody of the property during the inquiry or trial, the court assumes jurisdiction and control over the property and that is what happens when the property is produced before the court. In either of the two cases mentioned above, when the court makes an order regarding the custody of the property during the inquiry or trial, the court assumes jurisdiction and control over the property and that is what happens when the property is produced before the court. Consequently, when in 'this case, the court made an order in regard to the custody of the bullocks, they can be deemed to have been produced before the court, because unless the court could obtain jurisdiction and control over them, no such order could be made. 9. The circumstances of the Bombay case, to which reference has been made above, were somewhat different. It appears that in that case when the Magistrate made the order, there was no inquiry or trial pending and the Magistrate had no reason to suppose that an offence had been committed. In such circumstances, the property could not have been produced before the court; nor could any order be made regarding its custody by the court. 10. There is a decision of the Lahore High Court in AIR 1929 658 (Lahore) In that case, during the investigation of a reported case of burglary, the police had seized certain bullocks, which were handed over to a Sapurdar, who had executed a bond undertaking to produce them on demand before the court or the police. When the case was before the court, the Sapurdar failed to deliver the property. He, however, appeared and executed another bond undertaking to produce the bullocks on the next date of hearing or to pay a penalty of Rs. 1000/-. He however, failed to produce the bullocks even on that date. The bond was forfeited, and he was ordered to pay the penalty. The question arose whether the bond was covered by the provisions of section 516- A. of the Code of Criminal Procedure; and also whether it was open to the Sapurdar to raise the objection that the bond had not been executed under that section, as the bullocks had not actually teen produced before the court. It was held that the bond was covered by the said section, inspite of the fact that the bullocks were not actually produced before the court. 11. It was held that the bond was covered by the said section, inspite of the fact that the bullocks were not actually produced before the court. 11. In the next place it has been contended on behalf of the complainant that, in any case, the court was not justified in delivering the bullocks to the accused, an interested person, as he might cause them to disappear. When the complaint was filed, the bullocks were in the possession of the accused. They were taken away from his possession in view of the allegation that there was an apprehension of their being made to disappear. In order to establish his bona fides, the accused offered to give security. The Magistrate was satisfied ; and in exercise of the discretion which vested in him be made an order that the bullocks be delivered to the accused. There appears to be no reason to interfere with that discretion. If the accused causes the bullocks to disappear, he will stand condemned; and consequently, he is not likely to adopt such a course. 12. Learned counsel for the complainant has pointed out that when the bullocks were sold by the accrued to the complainant, be had executed a receipt, which was admitted by him. In the application, which the accused had filed to obtain back the custody of the bullocks, be bad, however denied the allegations made by the complainant. The question whether the bullocks were sold by the accused to the complainant is, therefore, still in issue bet when the parties. 13. Learned counsel has further pointed out that there was the danger of the bullocks being not properly fed or looked after. If any such thing happens, it will be open to the complainant to move the court before whom the case is pending. 14. I therefore, see no force in this revision and reject it.