S.P. Sinha J. The short question involved in this revision concerns the scope of section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The facts, shortly stated, are as under : The petitioner lodged a first information report against opposite party nos.1 and 2 charging them with an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a buffalo and its newly born calf. That was on the 14th of October, 1972. The police submitted its report to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, who, on perusal thereof, passed an order on the 24th October, 1972 putting the buffalo and the calf in the custody of the petitioner, the accuser. The petitioner duly took custody of the buffalo and the calf after furnishing the security which was required from him. The opposite party then moved the Court for custody of the buffalo and the calf. The court by its order dated the 28th November, 1972 accepted the opposite party's petition and ordered the buffalo and the calf to be released to opposite party no. 2 on furnishing a security bond, the amount of which was specified. It appears that against the order, the petitioner moved the Sessions Judge and asked for a reference to be made to the High Court. That application was, however, summarily dismissed. It further appears that the opposite party could not get custody of the buffalo and the calf. On the 12th of December, 1972, the police submitted charge-sheet against opposite party nos. 1 and 2, and cognizance of the offence under section 406 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against them. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, while taking cognizance, further ordered that the buffalo "will remain with the informant.” The opposite party thereupon filed an application before the court to which the case had now been transferred praying for implementation of the order dated the 28th November, 1972, by which they had been given the custody of the buffalo and the calf. In that application, they also mentioned that the said order dated the 28th November, 1972, seemed to have been recalled by the order dated the 12th December, 1972. In that application, they also mentioned that the said order dated the 28th November, 1972, seemed to have been recalled by the order dated the 12th December, 1972. This application was heard on the 6th of January, 1973, and the learned Munsif-Magistrate observed that the order dated the 28th November, 1972, was a perfectly valid order, and it would be deemed to have been confirmed by virtue of the fact that the reference prayed for against that order had been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. Having made that observation, he further observed, that the order dated the 12th December, 1972, recalling the previous order cannot be given effect to and consequently the said order dated the 12th December, 1972, was recalled. 2. Frankly speaking, I have not been able to appreciate the vacillating attitude of the court concerning the custody of the property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed. A court has to make up its mind firmly before ordering for custody of the property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed and then to put it in the custody of such person as it thinks fit. In the instant case, there has been a good deal of vacillation concerning the custody of the buffalo and the calf. Be that as it may, it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the transferee court had no jurisdiction to review the order concerning the custody of the buffalo and the calf passed by the transferor court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the transferee court was bound to honour the transferor court's order concerning the custody. On behalf of the opposite party, the contention is that while deciding the right of custody of the property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, it should normally be left in the custody of that person in whose possession that property was found initially. Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sardar Singh Kohli v. M/s Swastik Financial Corporation (P) Ltd., New Delhi and others 1964 (2) Cr. L.J. 492 has been cited in support of this contention. 3. Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sardar Singh Kohli v. M/s Swastik Financial Corporation (P) Ltd., New Delhi and others 1964 (2) Cr. L.J. 492 has been cited in support of this contention. 3. In my opinion, the question in issue is not whether the transferee court could review the order of transferor court concerning the custody of a property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, nor is the question as to who should be given the custody of such property. In the case cited by the learned counsel for the opposite party, their Lordships were dealing with the custody of a motor vehicle which was the property regarding which an offence appeared to have been committed. The court below had decided upon the custody of the motor vehicle on the basis of title and ownership of the rival claims to it. Their Lordships, while deprecating it, observed that the person who held the registration certificate and the route permit in his name would be the proper person to have the custody of the vehicle. This decision did not propound any rule of universal application as a test to determine as to which party should be given custody of a property relating to which an offence appears to have been committed. The question of custody has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case, and it very much depends upon the judicial approach to the question of custody by the criminal court concerned. 4. Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 deals with the custody and disposal of property pending enquiry or trial; the relevant portion of which reads as follows: "When any property regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which appears to have been used for the commission of any offence, is produced before any Criminal Court during any inquiry or trial, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the proper custody of such property pending the conclusion of the inquiry or trial.".. It cannot be gainsaid that the inquiry commences with the cognizance of a complaint. It is only thereafter that an order under section 516-A is required to be made. It cannot be gainsaid that the inquiry commences with the cognizance of a complaint. It is only thereafter that an order under section 516-A is required to be made. Any order made regarding the custody of property prior to the taking of cognizance of an offence will be a mere interim order which mayor may not be revised after the taking of cognizance of a complaint. 5. Now, in the instant case, the first two orders relating to the custody of the buffalo and the calf-one giving custody to the petitioner and the other giving custody to the opposite party-were passed prior to the taking of cognizance of the offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken on the 18th of December, 1972, on which date the court having learnt, as it appears from the trend of its order, that the buffalo and the calf were still in possession of the petitioner, ordered their custody to remain with the petitioner. In terms of section 516-A the court was perfectly justified in making such an order. It is for the court concerned to decide as to who should be in custody of the concerned property. At this stage, the custody does not confer any right in the property on the custodian. The custodian acts as a mere trustee for the court in respect of the property concerned. It is, therefore, for the court to decide and find out as to which person was the fittest person for holding the custody of the property, The order passed by the court which took cognizance relating to the custody of the buffalo and the calf was, therefore, a valid order. There after, when the case was transferred for trial, the trial court should not ordinarily revise the order unless it finds something basically wrong with it. 6. Reading the impugned order dated the 6th January 1973, I do not find any reason for the transferee court to observe that 'it was not open to the learned Magistrate to recall the previous order passed on 28.11.72", by which order the custody of the buffalo and the calf had been given to the opposite party. I will once again reiterate that this order dated the 24th November, 1972 as also the previous order dated the 24th October, 1972 were interim orders prior to the taking of the cognizance of the complaint. I will once again reiterate that this order dated the 24th November, 1972 as also the previous order dated the 24th October, 1972 were interim orders prior to the taking of the cognizance of the complaint. The orders passed at that stage were not the orders in terms of section 516-A-may be they were orders in terms of section 523 of the Code. Be that as it may, it is only after the cognizance was taken on the 12th December 1972 that the order passed relating to the custody of the buffalo and the calf was an order in terms of section 516-A of the Code. The custody of the buffalo and the calf having given to the petitioner and the transferee court having not found any material indicating any error in it. I think the transferee court was not justified in not honouring that order. The impugned order dated the 6th January, 1973, is therefore, set aside and the court is directed to implement the order dated the 12th December, 1972. 7. I may, however, observe that the property concerned is a buffalo giving milk. The court should have given some necessary direction concerning the milk as to what the custodian should do with it, otherwise the effect would be that if the opposite party is successful at the trial, possibly he will lose the value of the milk which otherwise he would have been entitled to. 8. In the result, the impugned order dated the 6th January, 1973 is set aside and the trial court is directed to implement the order dated the 12th December, 1972 regarding the custody of the buffalo and the calf keeping in view the observations made by me regarding the milk. The application is, accordingly, allowed. Application allowed.