Order.- This petition has been filed by the State challenging the order of disposal of property passed under section 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Additional First Class Magistrate, Civil Station, Bangalore, on 3rd October, 1970, in Crime No. 412 of 1970 on his file, ordering return of the explosives in favour of the respondent on his undertaking on indemnity bond that he would be prepared to produce a sum of Rs. 5,000 in Court whenever required by the Court and would be agreeable to keep the said sum of Rs. 5,000 at the disposal of the Court for forfeiture or confiscation and on his furnishing one surety bond jointly and severally liable along with himself. 2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be briefly stated as follows: 3. On information received that some explosives were stored, the Circle Inspector of Police, Commercial Street Division, Bangalore, raided the house of one Syed Salauddin at House No. 4-C, No. 5, Street Chandinichowk Road, Bangalore-1. On searching the house, he found, as per the case of the State, 2925 gelatines (dynamites) in the house. He also found in a car bearing No. MYO 9019 parked near the house, 20 packets of detonators. The gelatines and the detonators were seized under a mahazar and a complaint was given by the Circle Inspector of Police and on that basis a case was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police for offences punishable under section 5 (3)(b) of the Indian Explosives Act. When the investigation was still going on, the seizure was reported and with the permission of the Court the articles were kept in safe custody with M/s. S.A. Sreenivasan and Company, who are the agents for explosives, Indian Explosives Ltd., and the said seized detonators and gelatines are kept in their magazine at Yeshvantpur. 4. On 28th September, 1970, the respondent and 71 others filed an application praying for return of the seized articles for the reasons mentioned by them in their application. The 71 others authorised the present respondent to receive the articles if return of the same was ordered by the learned Magistrate. 4. On 28th September, 1970, the respondent and 71 others filed an application praying for return of the seized articles for the reasons mentioned by them in their application. The 71 others authorised the present respondent to receive the articles if return of the same was ordered by the learned Magistrate. The matter was heard by the learned Magistrate and ultimately the learned Magistrate passed a bald order stating that in view of the contentions in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the application which are not directly and effectively controverted by the Investigating Officer in his report, the said seized articles are liable to be returned on the conditions already narrated above in one of the preceding paragraphs. 5. It is contended by the State that this order passed by the learned Magistrate is not according to law and is liable to be set aside and, therefore, should be set aside. 6. The learned Government Pleader urged that no reasons are found in the said application filed by the respondent and 71 others to warrant this unusual step of returning material objects required in a criminal case. He also urged that the said authorised agent M/s. Sreenivasan and Company have intimated as per their letter dated 14th October, 1970, which is produced along with the revision petition filed by the State, that the said explosives are good for nearly 9 to 12 months if properly stored, and, therefore, it cannot at all be contended that the articles are perishable. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the articles belonged to many persons who are the claimants and they have, in the Court, produced bills for having purchased the articles, and, therefore, their claim should not be brushed aside on the ground that the seizure has been made from two places, viz., the house and the car. According to him, they are entitled to show that they are entitled to have possession of these articles. 8. It is certain that the investigation is not yet completed. It is also definite that these articles have to be examined by experts for their opinion in regard to the nature of the articles. According to him, they are entitled to show that they are entitled to have possession of these articles. 8. It is certain that the investigation is not yet completed. It is also definite that these articles have to be examined by experts for their opinion in regard to the nature of the articles. The learned State Public Prosecutor has mentioned in the revision petition that the Inspector of Explosives at Madras has to examine the explosives and therefore it would not be proper to return the articles as ordered by the learned Additional First Class Magistrate. It is also stated by the learned State Public Prosecutor in the revision petition that the articles are liable to forfeiture and confiscation under section 10 of the Indian Explosives Act, and, therefore, it would not be proper in law to to order return of such articles that too pending investigation. 9. It is a well recognised principle that in regard to material objects in criminal cases, they should be ordinarily available before the Court till the trial closes and the final order of disposal is passed by the Court under section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code. If the material objects are of a perishable nature, then it is open to the Court to deal with the material objects according to rules and in case they are sold credit the sale proceeds of the material objects to the criminal Court deposit of the Court. If the material objects are of the type of animals and vehicles, the ordinary course to be adopted by the Courts is to order return of such articles to persons appearing to be entitled to such return on condition of their executing proper bonds and furnishing security, for the safe custody of the articles and for production of the said articles whenever called upon by the Court or on every day of the hearing of the criminal Case. 10. The course adopted by the learned Additional Magistrate does not fall in any of the categories mentioned in the preceding paragraph. He has adopted rather a strange course. He has not even expressed whether according to him the articles are perishable in nature. He has not mentioned any reason as to why he chose to pass an order of return of the articles to the respondent. He has adopted rather a strange course. He has not even expressed whether according to him the articles are perishable in nature. He has not mentioned any reason as to why he chose to pass an order of return of the articles to the respondent. All that is found in his order is that the contentions put forward by the respondent and 71 others in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of their petition are not directly and effectively controverted by the Investigating Officer in his report. I am unable to see how such a reason can be made the basis of an order of return. I am unable to see what the learned Magistrate meant by observing that the contentions put forward by the respondent and 71 others in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of their petition are not directly and effectively controverted by the Investigating Officer in his report. When there are no special considerations and extraordinary reasons to warrant such an order of return of articles of this type, the order passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained in law. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons, it is seen that the order in question is liable to be set aside and hence this criminal revision petition is allowed and the same is set aside. S.V.S ----- Petition allowed.