JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a revision application by the petitioners against the order of A, M. J. M., Gangapur City dated 6-1-83 by which he ordered that the camel be given on Superaginama to non-petitioner Ramjilal. 3. Notice of this revision petition was given to the non-petitioners, and on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2. Ramjilal the revision petition has been contested. 4. The facts are that Ramjilal lodged a complaint on 1-9-82 at P, S. Gadhmora to the effect that his son Surgyan singh was coming from Lalsot along with one camel. When he reached Rewali village, the accused petitioner met him. They asked Surgyan Singh to give the camel to them for Rs. 1900/- and it was agreed that the amount shall be paid to them in the village. When they had covered some distance, it is alleged that the petitioners gave warning to Surgyan Singh to run away from that place otherwise they will murder him. On this threatening, Surgyan Singh came back and reported the matter, to his father Ramjilal. Ramjilal came to the village of the petitioners several times. The petitioners promised to pay the amount but did not pay. Thereafter, he lodged the F. I. R. at the police station, which was registered under Sec. 420, I. P. C. After investigation the police submitted a final report before the learned Magistrate, who did not accept it and took cognisance against the petitioners. Ramjilal submitted an application on 6-10-82 to the learned Magistrate to return the camel, which was recovered by the police from the petitioner. The accused-petitioners also moved an application on 11-13-83 for returning the camel to them, because the camel was recovered from them. The case of the accused-petitioners is that the camel was given to them in exchange of another camel, which they gave to the complainant along with Rs. 400/-. The learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties allowed the application of the complainant Ramjilal and disallowed the prayer of the petitioners. Against this order, the present revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner raised an objection that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was u/s 451, Cr. P. C. and this order being interlocutory order no revision lies against this order. As such, the revision petition is not maintainable. Against this order, the present revision has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner raised an objection that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was u/s 451, Cr. P. C. and this order being interlocutory order no revision lies against this order. As such, the revision petition is not maintainable. I agree with the learned counsel for the non-petitioner and hold that the order under Sec. 451, Cr. P. C. is an interlocutory order and hence no revision lies against this order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed that in case the revision is not maintainable, then this petition may be treated as an application under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. and under this section this Court has inherent powers to grant relief. According to him the order of the learned Magistrate is illegal and he has prayed that the camel should have been given to them on Superdginma instead of the complainant. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments avanced on behalf of both the parties. The ruling Jugal Kishore v. Babulal (1983 RLW 163) cited by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner has been perused. In this case, Honble Agarwal J. distinguished Secs. 451, 452 and 457. Cr. P. C. and regarding Sec. 451, it is mentioned that the order under this section is an interim order. It is not a final order and as such it is an interlocutory order. Nothing more has been decided in this case about Sec. 451, Cr. P. C. As such, no revision is maintainable. Now, I am considering this application as an application under Sec. 482, Cr. P. C. 8. On the report of Ramjilal non-petitioner, the police investigated the matter and after investigated submitted a final report. Another aspect of the case is, that the report was lodged on 1-9-82 and according to this F. I. R. the incident took place some 10-12 days before lodging the report. During the period of 10-12 days as stated by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner, the non-petitioner was pursuing the matter with the petitioners and they were promising to return the camel or to pay the money, but did not pay, As such, the report was lodged after this delay. Whatever may be the cause and whatever may be the conclusion or inference of this delay. Whatever may be the cause and whatever may be the conclusion or inference of this delay. I am not concerned at this stage, but this fact is certainly to be kept in mind. 9. Another point to be kept in mind is, that the complainants version is that the petitioners took the camel for Rs. 1900/-. The petitioners allege that they paid Rs. 400/-and one camel in exchange of the camel in question. There fore, the argument of the learned counsel for the non-petitioner is that by this fact it is established that the disputed camel belongs to the non-petitioner Ramjilal. I agree to it. This is correct that the camel which was given on superdginama belongs to Ramjilal but the point is, whether this camel was sold for Rs. 1900/- to the petitioners and they did not pay the amount or it was given to the petitioners in exchange of the camel and Rs. 400/-, as alleged by the petitioners. At this stage, the learned Magistrate is to satisfy himself and it is in his discretion to pass the order as he thinks fit for the proper custody of the property during the trial. But this discretion is to be exercised judicially. He should have considered the contention of the petitioners also. I think, the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the contention of the petitioners that they have taken the camel in exchange of one camel and Rs. 400/--. He has taken cognizance of the case and after conclusion of the trial a final order will be passed by him as to who is the owner of the camel, but at the present state when the camel was recovered by the police from the petitioners and their contention was that it was taken by them in exchange of one camel and Rs. 400/-, the learned Magistrate should have considered this aspect. As such, I am inclined to accept the applications of the petitioners, and hold that the learned Magistrate has not exercised his discretion in a proper way. As both the parties claim the camel to be theirs. I think the proper order would be to give on Superdginama the camel to the person from whose possession it was recovered, i. e., the petitioners. As both the parties claim the camel to be theirs. I think the proper order would be to give on Superdginama the camel to the person from whose possession it was recovered, i. e., the petitioners. I would like to mention here that this order will not come in the way while passing the order under S. 452, Cr .P. C. at the conclusion of the trial by the learned Magistrate. 10. I, therefore, accept the application under S. 482, Cr.P.C. and set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated 6-1-83. It is directed that the camel in question be handed over to the petitioners on Superdginama of Rs. 3,000/- with the condition that they will not dispose of the camel during the trial of this case. They will keep it in good condition and will produce the camel in the court during the trial of the case, as and when required by the trial Court.Petition allowed. *******