JUDGMENT 1. - Two applications, one under section 482 Cr. P. C. and the other under section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. came for decision. Both the above applications art disposed of by one single order as the matter to be decided in both these applications is common. 2. Brief facts leading to these petitions are that on 8th January, 1982, one Shri Kishan Chand lodged an FIR at Police Station, Manak Chowk that he and his friend Amar Chand had been doing some business of brokerage in precious stones. Kushal Chand was the partner of the firm know n as `Ratna Deep'. The allegations in the FIR were that on 10th Novembar, 1981, the accused Akhlesh Chand along with his cousin brother Naresh Chand came to them and told that they wanted diamond rings, ear-tops etc. for a customer. Thereafter, several items of Jewellery worth about Rs. 2,50,000/- were entrusted to the accused. Subsequently, the accused did not return the aforesaid articles and committed criminal breach of trust in respect of the same. On the above information the police registered a case under section 406 IPC against the accused persons Akhlesh Chandra and Naresh Chandra. Application submitted by Akhlesh Chandra for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr. P. C. was dismissed right upto the Supreme Court while Naresh Chandra was released on anticipatory bail. 3. It appears that certain proceedings under sections 82 and 83 Cr. P. C. were initiated against the accused Akhlesh Chandra and he was ultimately arrested on 27th March, 1983. On 28th March. 1981, he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No. 13, who remanded the accused to police custody up til 2nd April. 1983. During this period the accused moved an application for getting him medically examined. On the said application the Magistrate passed an order on 28th March, 198 3, that the accused may be forwarded to the Medical Jurist. S M. S. Hospital for doing needful and report on 30th March, 83. It appears that on 29th March, 1983 the accused was produced before the Medical Jurist but the Medical Jurist made a report to the court to mention the nature of the medical examination (injury, poison, alcohol, age and sex). The Medical Jurist sought a clarification regarding the nature of medical examination. It appears that on 29th March, 1983 the accused was produced before the Medical Jurist but the Medical Jurist made a report to the court to mention the nature of the medical examination (injury, poison, alcohol, age and sex). The Medical Jurist sought a clarification regarding the nature of medical examination. The case of the prosecution is that on 29th March, 1983, the accused gave an information under section 27 of the Evidence Act that he had sold the valuable articles to a broker of Jodhpur and he could get the same recovered. In pursuance of that information the Investigating Officer took the accused to Jodhpur on 30th March, 1983 by Bus and reached Jodhpur on the same day at 3 p.m. On March 31, 1983, the Investigating Officer attempted to make recovery on the basis of information given by the accused but the case of the prosecution is that the accused did not cooperate in the recovery. At that time a radiogram message was received at about 4 p. m. by the Investigating Officer asking him to return to Jaipur along with the accused. The Investigating Officer in these circumstances was left with no choice and had to return to Jaipur. He returned back to Jaipur along with the accused in the morning of 1st April, 1983. It appears that on 2nd April, 1983 the Presiding Officer of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 13 was on leave and as such the police sought a further police custody remand from the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, declined to grant further police custody remand and by an order dated 2nd April, 1983, directed the accused to be taken to judicial custody. 4. Thereafter, a bail application was moved on behalf of the accused which came up for consideration before Judicial Magistrate No. 13, who granted the bail of the accused by order dated 4th April, 1983. 5. The state did not file any revision against any of the aforesaid order granting bail or granting judicial custody to the accused. However, the complainant aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge considered the matter in detail and by his order dated 3rd May, 1983, dismissed the revision as well as the application for cancellation of bail filed by the' complainant. However, the complainant aggrieved against the aforesaid two orders filed a revision before the learned Sessions Judge. Learned Sessions Judge considered the matter in detail and by his order dated 3rd May, 1983, dismissed the revision as well as the application for cancellation of bail filed by the' complainant. Now the State has filed these two petitions, one under section 482 Cr. P. C. for cancellation of the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 2nd April, 1983, ranting judicial custody remand to the accused in place of police custody remand. The other petition under section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. has been filed for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused by order dated 4th April, 1983. 6. It was contended by Mr. Chatterjee, Public Prosecutor, that only 3 hours time was made available to the Investigating Officer at Jodhpur on 31st March, 1983, and he had to return back immediately with the"accused and as such fair opportunity and time has not been given to the investigating agency for the purpose of making recovery of the articles. It is further submitted that articles of huge value have been misappropriated by the accused which can only be recovered at the instance of the information given by the accused. It was also submitted that looking to the conduct of the accused and other facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in not granting further police custody remand and sending the accused in judicial custody. As regards the order releasing the accused on bail it was submitted that the offence involves a huge amount as such the order releasing the accused on bail should be cancelled. 7. Mr. Dave appearing on behalf of the accused, on the other hand submitted that sufficient opportunity was given to the investigating agency for making recovery, if any, on the information given by the accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act It was further submitted that no application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against the order of the Sessions Judge dismissing the revision filed at the instance of the complainant. Reliance in this regard was placed on Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others: AIR 1977 SC 2185 and Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and other : AIR 1979 SC 381 . It was also submitted by Mr. Reliance in this regard was placed on Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others: AIR 1977 SC 2185 and Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and other : AIR 1979 SC 381 . It was also submitted by Mr. Dave that the State had no grievance against the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 2nd April, 1983 and the Judicial Magistrate No. 13 on 4th April, 1983, as no revision or application for cancellation of bail was ever moved on behalf of the State. It was only the complainant, who had filed such applications and the same were rightly dismissed by the Sessions Judge after giving adequate reasons in his order dated 3rd May, 1983. It was also submitted by Mr. Dave that the incident as alleged to be of 10th November, 1981 to which more than two years have elapsed and it would neither be just nor proper to now allow the police to take the accused into custody for the purpose of making any recovery at his instance under section 27 of the Evidence Act. 8. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for accused. It is an admitted position that the incident relates to 10th November, 1981 The accused was arrested on 27th March, 1983. He was taken to Jodhpur for making recovery at the instance of information given by him under section 27 of the Evidence Acts on 30th March, 1983. According to the admitted case of the prosecution 3 hours time was available to the Investigating Officer for making any recovery at the instance of the accused. According to him he received the wireless message at 4 p.m. on 31st March, 1983 at Jodhpur as such the whole day of 31st March, 1983 was available to the Investigating Officer. Be that as it may, if the accused was not inclined to make any recovery or did not give any information, there is no justification for granting further police custody remand to the police for the purpose of making any recovery at the instance of the accused, have the information already furnished by the accused shows that he did not make any mention of any particular place or person from whom the articles were to be recovered. Even according to the prosecution itself the accused had not cooperated in giving any information for making recovery of the alleged articles. Even if that be so, the police cannot compel the accused for giving the information for making any recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act. It lies in the sweet will of the accused to give any information for making any recovery under section 27 of the Evidence Act. In my view there is hardly any justification for allowing the police to take the accused in custody now for the only purpose of making any recovery of the articles for which he had given any information earlier on 29th March, 1983. The learned Sessions Judge has also given adequate reasons for not interfering in the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 2nd April, 1983 and I do not find any adequate reason for taking a different view and to invoke the powers of this court under section 482 Cr. P. C. So far as the application of the State for cancellation of bail is concerned, suffice it to say that it is nowhere the case of the State that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him or that he has tampered with any evidence. The offence is of 406 IPC and there hardly arises any question of interfering in the order of bail granted by the Judicial Magistrate on 4th April, 1983.In view of these circumstances both these petitions are dismissed.Application dismissed. *******