JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 482 Cr.P.C. The contention of the petitioner is that C. I.,R.S. R.T.C. Jaipur has seized the bus No. RJI 1003 from the possession of the petitioner and the bus is lying at the police station Chirawa. The petitioner submitted an application before the Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa to hand over the bus to him on 'Superdaginama'. Learned Magistrate vide his order dated 1-8-1983, rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that he has no jurdiction to try this case. It seems that the bus was seized by the Inspector, R.S.R.T.C. and there is a separate Magistrate trying the cases of R.S.R.T.C under Motor Vehicles Act, sitting at Jaipur, hence the view of the Magistrate is that as the Roadways Magistrate, Jaipur has jurisdiction to try this case, this application should also be disposed off by him. On this ground, he has rejected the prayer of the petitioner. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner has filed an application under Section 457 Cr.P.C. which says that whenever any property is seized by any police officer and the seizure is reported to the Magistrate, such property, whether produced in the Criminal Court during the enquiry or trial or not, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property. The Magistrate may pass necessary orders for the delivery of such property to the person who is entitled to such possession. In the Criminal Procedure Code there are two more provisions for disposal of the property. One is under Section 451 Cr.P.C. and another is under Section 452 Cr.P.C. When any property is produced before any Criminal Court during any trial or enquiry, the Court may make such order under section 451 Cr.P.C. for the proper custody of the property pending the conclusion of the enquiry or trial. Under Section 452 Cr.P.C. when an enquiry or trial in a criminal court is concluded, the Court may make such order about the disposal or delivery of the property. Under Section 452 Cr.P.C. when an enquiry or trial in a criminal court is concluded, the Court may make such order about the disposal or delivery of the property. But Section 457, which is an independent Section, says that when any seizure of the property is reported to the Magistrate and such property is not produced before the Criminal Court during the enquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order respecting the disposal of the property. Thus in the present circumstances the only Section applicable is Section 457 Cr.P.C. When the bus was seized by the Inspector, Roadways, the petitioner submitted an application to the M.J.M. Chirawa, for return of the bus to him. On this application the Magistrate called the Report from the police station where the bus was lying. The S.H.O., P.S. Chirawa reported that the bus was seized by the Inspector, Roadways Transport Corporation and on this report, after hearing both parties the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that he has no jurisdiction to pass any order on this application because he has no jurisdiction to try this case. Here I have no hesitation to say that the Magistrate has committed an error Under section 457 Cr.P.C. two condition are to be fulfilled. (1) that the seizure of the property is reported to the Magistrate and (2) that the property is not produced before the Criminal Court in an enquiry or trial. 3. In the present case when the Magistrate called the report from the SHO-Chirawa Police Station, he submitted the report about the seizure of the bus, but the bus has not been produced before the Criminal Court, so both these conditions are being fulfilled for passing an order under Section 457 Cr.P.C. 4. In P.V. Joseph v. State, Cr.LJ 1978, page 1206 it has been observed by his Lordship as under:- 10. Giving the words of Section 457 their ordinary meaning only two conditions have to be fulfilled for acting under the section and they are that seizure of property is reported to Magistrate and that the property is not produced before criminal court in an enquiry or trial. Giving the words of Section 457 their ordinary meaning only two conditions have to be fulfilled for acting under the section and they are that seizure of property is reported to Magistrate and that the property is not produced before criminal court in an enquiry or trial. If those conditions are satisfied irrespective of the question whether the property is produced before the Magistrate or not and irrespective of the question whether he is competent to hold inquiry or trial of the case in which the property is involved or not the Magistrate can at the stage of investigation itself pass order Under S. 457. As that interpretation based upon the literal meaning of the words of the section does not lead to results which are absurd or confusing or inconsistent I consider that as right. I regret I cannot agree with the decisions in Balaji's case 1976 Cr. LJ 1461 (Andh. Pra.) and Nanno Mal's case, 1976 Cr. LJ 1983 (ALL.) 5. Thus it is immaterial whether the Magistrate has to try the case or not or whether he is competent to hold an inquiry in that case in which the property is involved. The Magistrate has power to pass an order u/s 457 Cr.P.C. if the conditions laid-down in that Section are fulfilled. 6. In the present case, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in refusing to pass any order on the application irrespective of the jurisdiction to try the case, it was for him to dispose off the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate, dated 1-8-83 is set aside and he is directed to dispose of the application after hearing both parties.Petition allowed. *******