JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J. - This application in revision is by Rampal against an order of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ghaziabad passed on 1-12-1955, giving the custody of certain bullocks to Hirdan Singh. A revision was filed against that order before the learned Sessions Judge but it was rejected by him on 19-1-1956, on the ground that the order delivering the bullocks to Hirdan Singh appears to be justified in the circumstances of the case. 2. The first point which has been contended on behalf of the applicant is that when the Magistrate had passed an order on 22-1-55, directing that the bullocks be given to the custody of Rampal on taking security from him in the sum of Rs. 1 500/- that order became final and it was not open to the Magistrate to supersede that order subsequently on 1-12-1955, by which he directed that the bullocks be given to Hirdan Singh on the furnishing of proper security. It has next been contended that the Sub-Divisonal Magistrate was not competent to review the earlier order of 22-1-(sic). 3. Narain Singh and Rampal pre related to each other. On 28-10-1955 a marpit took place. In connection with that marpit one report was lodged by Udai Singh, who contended that Rampal and others had raided his residence and had attacked him with lathis. Another report was lodged by Rampal to the effect that Narain Smgh and others had invaded his gher and attacked him with lathis. The police challanned Rampal and certain others Under Sections 326, and 325 and certain other sections of the IPC but submitted a final report in the case against Udai Singh and others including Narain Singh. It was in connection with investigation in the case of State v. Udai Singh and Ors. that the police had recovered two bullocks from Hirdan Singh. Before the submission of the final report the police sought the advice of the Magistrate in connection with these two bullocks and the. Magistrate obviously in his advisory capacity passed the following order on 22-1-1955: Seen the report and considered the facts. As according to S.O. the bullocks prima-facie belonged to Rampal so they may be given to his custody on taking security from him for Rs. 1,500/- for precaution in case if necessary. 4. Magistrate obviously in his advisory capacity passed the following order on 22-1-1955: Seen the report and considered the facts. As according to S.O. the bullocks prima-facie belonged to Rampal so they may be given to his custody on taking security from him for Rs. 1,500/- for precaution in case if necessary. 4. The police submitted the final report in the case aforesaid on 8-2-1955, and thereafter a complaint was lodged by Rampal in connection with the same matter. Several applications were made by Narain Singh for the custody of the bullocks. Ultimately the Sub-Divisional Magistrate considered the whole question on 1-12-1955. The Magistrate came to the conclusion that the bullocks after submission of the final report in the investigation in which they had been recovered by the police must be restored to the person from whom they were recovered i.e., Hirdan Singh, and that Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure envisages an order to that effect and the earlier order dated 22-1-1955 did not preclude him from directing that the bullocks should be restored to the possession of Hirdan Singh. 5. Appearance has been entered in the present matter by the applicant as also by the State, and further on behalf of Hirdan Singh and Narain Singh and counsel have been heard. Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not specifically refer to Section 550 but it refers to those circumstances of seizure which are mentioned in Section 550. Where therefore the property is seized u/s 165 and not u/s 550 of the Code, its disposal is not governed by Section 523; and if the order disposing of the property cannot be passed under any other provision of the Code, the order not one passed under the Code and must be treated as an administrative or an executive order. If the order is treated as one passed u/s 523 of the Code, Section 523 does not contemplate any inquiry by a Magistrate though he may have to find out which person is entitled to the possession, and it does not follow that he must hold some sort of an enquiry. The legislature assumes that whatever information is in possession of the Magistrate should suffice for his finding which person is entitled to the possession. The legislature assumes that whatever information is in possession of the Magistrate should suffice for his finding which person is entitled to the possession. The person from whose possession the property was seized and who is not found to have committed any offence such as would render his possession unlawful, is the person entitled to possession. In the present case the property was seized from the possession of Hirdan Singh. No offence is alleged to have been committed by him. His possession cannot therefore be said to be unlawful and he was the person entitled to possession. There is no provision in Section 523 of the Code for passing an interim order. The order dated 22-1-1955, referred to above was not an order which has justification under any of the provisions of the Code. If that order was not an order u/s 523 no question of review arose and the subsequent order that was passed by the Magistrate on 1-12-1955, was not controlled by the earlier order. This subsequent order is not an order in review but an order which is an independent order and which the circumstances of the case demanded. 6. Property can be seized 'by the police in one or more circumstances. Section 550 authorises a police officer to seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under the circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. When any property said to have been used in the commission of any offence or regarding which any offence is said to have been committed is produced before any criminal court during any enquiry or trial, the Court can make such order as it thinks fit for the custody of the property pending the conclusion of the enquiry or trials. When the enquiry or trial is concluded the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal by distinction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise of any property produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. 7. Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: (1). 7. Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows: (1). The seizure by any police-officer of property taken u/s 51, or alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence, shall be forthwith reported to a Magistrate, who shall make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof, or, if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property, (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (if any) as the Magistrate thinks fit. If such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. 8. In the present case the property was seized by the police during the investigation of the case. So it was seized u/s 165 of the Code. It was not seized u/s 550. The disposal of the property was not governed by Section 516-A or Section 517 of the Code. There was no enquiry or trial before any Criminal Court, nor was the property produced before the learned Magistrate. It was not a property governed by Section 521. As it was not seized u/s 550 its disposal was not governed by Section 523. It follows that the order under revision is not an order passed, or even required to be passed under the Code and must be treated as an administrative or executive order. It was for the police, who had seized the property u/s 165, to dispose it of on their own responsibility The learned Magistrate was not concerned with the disposal because neither was it produced before him nor did he held any enquiry or trial, nor did he authorise the seizure, nor was the seizure even reported to him. Seizure of property u/s 550 must be reported at once to a Magistrate who is bound to pass orders for its disposal. Seizure of property u/s 550 must be reported at once to a Magistrate who is bound to pass orders for its disposal. In this case there is no evidence that the seizure was reported to the learned Magistrate when it was made. His directions were sought for, when the investigation was concluded and the final report submitted. Seeking directions for disposal is not the same thing as reporting the seizure. The Code contains no provisions for disposal of property seized during the investigation which results in a final report; evidently it leaves it to the police to dispose of it. A Magistrate has nothing to do with it. The order of disposal is intended by the Code to be an executive order of the police. It is open to the police to seek directions from a Magistrate and if the Magistrate chooses to give certain directions he does not act under the Code and the directions given by him are not open to challenge in any superior Court. If the learned Magistrate had passed the order in the nature of an advice to the police or an administrative order, I have no doubt that I would have refused to interfere with it in revision. But he has expressly passed it u/s 523 and this fact gives jurisdiction to this Court to interfere under that provision. The learned Magistrate's order dated 1-12-1955, cannot however, either in law or in equity be interfered with in revision because that was just the order which the police should have made for the return of the property to the person from whom the property was seized. Consequently the Magistrate by advising the police on 1-12-1955, to return the property to Hirdan Singh on his executing certain security and on undertaking to represent the bullocks in the criminal complaint filed by Rampal was therefore just the advice which the Magistrate could have given to the police when the police sought such advice. In this view of the matter I am not inclined to interfere with the order and I reject the application in revision.