Order: This Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 23rd January, 1973 passed by the II City Magistrate, Mysore, in Crime No. 1 of 1973, apparently under section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The relevant facts are that on 26th December, 1972, according to the petitioner, his bullocks and the cart were stolen and he gave a complaint to the police on 2nd January, 1973. The Police seized the bollocks and the cart in question from respondent 1 on 6th January, 1973. When the same were produced before the Magistrate, they were allowed to remain in the custody of Patel Javare Gowda. On 5th January, 1973, the petitioner-complainant filed Small Cause Suit No. 25 of 1973, against respondent 1 as defendant, in the Court of the Small Causes at Mysore. He filed an application I.A. No. 1 for an order of attachment under Order 38, rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but did not press it. On 6th January, 1973, he filed LA. No. 2 for appointment of a commissioner in order to take possession of the bullocks and the cart, and the Court allowed the application. On 9th January, 1973, applications were filed before the Magistrate, by both the parties, praying for handing over possession of the bullocks and the cart to them. Those applications were considered and disposed of by the order in question. The learned Magistrate has ordered that possession of bullocks and the cart should be handedover to respondent 1 who was the accused in the said Crime No. 1 of 1973. Smt. Anasuya, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that on 23rd January, 1973 also it was brought to the notice of the Magistrate that a commissioner has been appointed by the Court of Small Causes, and that Commissioner was to take possession of these bullocks and the catt, but the Magistrate has not at all taken this aspect of the matter into consideration while passing the impugned order. 3. The facts mentioned above, make it abundantly clear that by 9th January, 1973, the date on which both the parties applied before the Magistrate for possession of the bullocks and the cart, a commissioner had been appointed by the Court of Small Causes as the order was passed on LA. 3. The facts mentioned above, make it abundantly clear that by 9th January, 1973, the date on which both the parties applied before the Magistrate for possession of the bullocks and the cart, a commissioner had been appointed by the Court of Small Causes as the order was passed on LA. No. 2 on 6th January, 1973, and a commission warrant had been issued in favour of Sri C. Bhagavan, an Advocate in Mysore. It was the duty of the Magistrate to have considered this circumstance also before proceeding to pass an order under section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrates are required to direct possession of properties to be handed over to persons entitled to possession thereof. When the matter was seized by the civil Court and the Court had appointed a commissioner to take possession of the properties, that necessarily would be material relevant for consideration while passing an order under section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned II City Magistrate has ignored this material and, therefore, it will have to be held that the order in question cannot be sustained. 4. In view of the foregoing reasons, I allow this petition and set aside the order, dated 23rd January, 1973 passed by the II City Magistrate, Mysore, in Crime No. 1 of 1973. The II City Magisrate, Mysore, is directed to dispose of the applications, dated 9th January, 1973 of the two parties afresh bearing in mind the observations made in the body of the order.