Short Note : 1. The prosecution case was that on 18-12-73 accused Bhairosingh and Jhade singh entered into an agreement with the complainants Gopilal, Ramnath and Halkesingh that they would obtain money from the Central Bank Gwalior, and give Rs. 44,200/- towards the price of 26 buffaloes, the receipt for which has been obtained from Gopilal Ramnath and halkesingh. This representation was fraudulent misrepresentation in order to cheat the criminals. The accused Jhadesingh and Bhaironsingh had taken the buffaloes away by, heating them On 28-3-1974, Gopilal, Ramnath and Halkesingh requested the city Magistrate and Additional District Magistrate (judicial) Gwalior to hand over the buffaloes to them on Supurdagi. A report from police Indergung. Lashkar was filed and 29-3-1974 was fixed for hearing. On that date an order was passed by the Additional District Magistrate (J) handing over the buffaloes to accused Jhadesingh and Bhaironsingh. Against that order the revision was filed. Held: The order dated 29-3-1974 does not show that any security was obtained from the Supurllagidar while handing over the buffaloes to him. Rule 124 (1) of the Rules and Orders (Criminal) is for the guidance of the criminal and subordinate Courts of High Courts of M.P. and it speaks that when the property concerned consist of live-stock, it should wherever possible be placed in the custody of a Supratdar, security being taken from him for its production whenever ordered and arrangement made for payment to him of the expenses incurred by him for feeding and looking after the livestock. Therefore, the order to hand over the buffaloes in Supurdgi without security cannot be maintained The second defect which had crept in the aforesaid order dated 29-3-1974 was that it was passed without hearing the complainants Gopilal Ramnath and halkesingh. Tile order only shows that the A.P.P. was heard for the State. This defect goes to the root of the aforesaid order and. as such it Cannot be maintained. Therefore the only thing which could be done was to set aside the order and the revisional Court had done so. This Court agrees with the findings and reasonings given by the learned Additional Session Judge for setting aside the order dated 29-3-1974. Revision allowed.