ORDER :- This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge (II) recommending that the proceedings in the Court of the Magistrate - Shri R. K. Madhusana Singh, in Criminal Case No. 71 of 1960 may be quashed and that the order of the Magistrate directing the Police to assist the Jimadar in pulling down the roof of the petitioner's building may be set aside. 2. This case discloses the rather sorry state of affairs in the Magistrates' Courts in this Union Territory and the havoc committed by inexperienced Executive Magistrates who are posted to deal with Criminal Cases. 3. On 5-8-19SO, the respondent filed a complaint before Shri P. C. Misao, S. D. C., I. W. alleging that he entrusted 4 bundles and 4 sheets of C. I. sheets on 29-6-1960 to the petitioner, that on 4-8-1960 he demanded their return, that the petitioner refused to do so, and that he had mis-appropriated the said C. I. sheets. In the sworn statement, the respondent stated that when he demanded he said C. I. sheets from the petitioner, the latter had already misappropriated them and so the respondent prayed that the C. I. sheets may be got back as it was required to cover his roofing. It was thus clear from the petition of complaint itself, as also from the sworn statement, that there was no criminal liability and that it was a matter to be agitated by the respondent in a Civil Court. There was no question of any dishonest mis-appropriation or any entrustment of property. Any Magistrate, who knew anything about criminal law would have simply dismissed such a complaint under Sec. 203 Cr. P. C. But this Magistrate sent the complaint for a Police report and the Police submitted a report on 12-8-1960 stating that the petitioner had taken the bundles of C. I. sheets from the respondent on loan promising to return the same on 5-7-1960 and that there was a loan deed in respect of it and that when the respondent asked the petitioner to return the C. I. sheets, he did not do so. It would be clear to anybody from this that there was no question of any criminal liability or criminal breach of trust, but that it was simply a case of a loan for which if the loanee did not discharge his civil liability by returning the same, the respondent will have to move the civil Court against him. In spite of this, the Police Officer M. Manigopal Singh, though he had not been directed by the Court to investigate the case, but only to enquire and report for the purpose of ascertaining the truth or falsehood of the complaint went on to seize the C. I. sheets without any order of the Magistrate. Such conduct on the part of this Police Officer Manigopal Singh has to be severely condemned. Even, the mode of seizure was peculiar. The petitioner, it appears, had used some of the C. I. sheets for the roofing of his shed. The Police Officer has stated that he made a formal seizure. He did not take the C. I. sheets from the roof into custody, but is said to have made the seizure by stating that he entrusted the C. I. sheets on the roof to the Jimma of one Action Nityal Singh by taking a Jimma deed from the said Nityal Singh. This did not amount to a seizure at all, as the C. I. sheets continued to remain in the possession of the petitioner. 4. Thereafter the case continued before this Magistrate, P. C. Misao. On 10-5-1961, he directed the Jimmadar Nityal Singh to produce the C. I. sheets before him. But they were not produced. Afterwards, on 3-7-1961, the case appears to have been transferred to the present Magistrate, Shri R. K. Madhusana Singh. He also called upon the said Nityal Singh to produce the C. I. sheets and ordered that the Jimma bond will be forfeited if the C. I. sheets were not produced in Court by 10-7-1961. On 10-7-1961, the petitioner filed a petition before the Magistrate Sri Madhusana Singh that even on the sworn statement of the complainant and the report of the Police, there was no offence disclosed against him and that he should therefore be discharged. But the Magistrate stated that he was satisfied that there was a prima facie case for proceeding with the complaint. But the Magistrate stated that he was satisfied that there was a prima facie case for proceeding with the complaint. On that date, the Jimmadar was present, but had not produced the C. I. sheets and he pleaded that he could not find labourers to pull down the C. I. sheets from the roof of the petitioner's house. The Magistrate thereupon directed that the Police shall accompany the Jimmadar at the time of pulling down the roof and that for the said purpose, the necessary Police Force would be requisitioned from the 0/C., I. P. S. Luckily, this atrocity did not take place as the Sessions Judge suspended the said order of the Magistrate. 5. One is unable to understand under what provision of the Cr. P. C. this Magistrate directed that the Police should accompany the Jimmadar in order to pull down the C. I. sheets from the roof of the petitioner to produce the same in Court. The Court had nothing to do with the Jimmadar Nityal Singh. The so-called seizure of the C. I. sheets had been made by the Police Officer Manigopal Singh. I have already stated that the conduct of this Manigopal Singh in making the so-called seizure of the property was entirely illegal. The Police certainly have the power of seizure of property under Sec. 165 Cr. P. C. while making investigation. But in this case this Manigopal Singh was not making any investigation, but was only directed by the Magistrate to enquire and report to the Court under Sec. 202 Cr. P. C. If therefore he wanted to seize the property, he could do so only under Sec. 550 Cr. P. C. But Sec. 550 will come into play only if a Police Officer seized any property, which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under circumstances which created suspicion of the commission of any offence. But this property was not said to be stolen. Nor was it found under circumstances which created suspicion of the commission of any offence. The complainant himself had told this Manigopal Singh that he had given the C. I. sheets on loan to the petitioner. Hence, if the petitioner had used them for roofing his shed, it is not a criminal offence and Sec. 550 Cr. P. C. cannot be used to effect a seizure. The complainant himself had told this Manigopal Singh that he had given the C. I. sheets on loan to the petitioner. Hence, if the petitioner had used them for roofing his shed, it is not a criminal offence and Sec. 550 Cr. P. C. cannot be used to effect a seizure. Further, when the matter was pending before the Court, it will be extremely mischievous on the part of the police officer to seize the property without the order of the Court which had directed him to enquire and report. The proper procedure in such cases is provided under Sec. 94 and Sec. 95 Cr. P. C. The person concerned could be summoned to produce the C. I. sheets or a search warrant could be caused to be issued. 6. Further, the so-called formal seizure will not amount to a seizure at all. The C. I. sheets were fixed to the roof of the petitioner and they were not detached and entrusted to the Jimmadar. By merely taking a Jimma deed, possession will not pass to the Jimmadar, but will continue with the petitioner in whose roofing the C. I. sheets were fixed. It will be better if the Police Officers do their duty in accordance with law and not create unnecessary trouble to parties in this fashion. Thus, when the C. I. sheets had not been seized at all, the Magistrate had no right to call upon the Jimmadar to produce the property in Court. 7. Even if there has been seizure by the Police and the Police had entrusted the property to a Jimmadar, the Court has nothing to do with the Jimmadar and cannot direct the Jimmadar to produce the property in Court. As far as the Court is concerned, the property continued to be in the custody of the Police and the Court can only call upon the Police to produce the seized property. if the Police had entrusted the property to a Jimmadar, that is a matter between the Police and the Jimmadar, the Court cannot seek to enforce that Jimma deed. The Court can only direct the Police to produce the seized property. The order of the Magistrate that the Jimma bond will be forfeited is a meaningless order. if the Police had entrusted the property to a Jimmadar, that is a matter between the Police and the Jimmadar, the Court cannot seek to enforce that Jimma deed. The Court can only direct the Police to produce the seized property. The order of the Magistrate that the Jimma bond will be forfeited is a meaningless order. The further order of the Magistrate that the Police will accompany the Jimmadar to pull down the roofing of the house in the petitioner's possession is equally meaningless. 8. The entire proceedings in this case have been illegal. The petitioner should not have been proceeded against in a Criminal Court and the Magistrate should have discharged him under Sec. 203 Cr. P. C. and dismissed the complaint. The Police Officer should not have seized the property or made a formal report of seizure that the C. I. sheets were entrusted to a Jimmadar when the C. I. sheets were left in the custody of the petitioner himself. The Magistrate had also no authority to direct the Jimmadar to produce the property in Court, direct the Police to accompany the Jimmadar to pull down the roof of the petitioner's house and to produce the C. I. streets used for roofing in Court. The proceedings before trie Magistrate are entirely illegal and the entire proceedings are quashed and the complaint is directed to dismissed as disclosing no offence. Reference allowed.