JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the order of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dated 17-9-1983. 2. Brief facts leading to this petition are that on the night intervening 12th and 13th September, 1985 when the petitioner alighted from a Bus at Ghatgate Jaipur and was returning back to his house situated in Rasta Maniharan, he was interrogated by the Police Constable and on interrogation he could not give satisfactory answer, as such he was arrested and taken to Police Station, Ramganj. On search of the petitioner he was found to be in possession of 61500 currency notes and 18 killograms and 530 grams of silver. The police filed a challan against the petitioner under section 41(2) read with Section 109 Cr.P.C. The matter was heard by the Executive Magistrate, who by his order dated 13-9-1983 found that no charge was held established against the petitioner and as such discharged him in those proceedings. The police then submitted an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, No. 1, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 15-9-1983 that orders may be passed with regard to the delivery of the property seized under section 102 Cr.P.C. It was further mentioned in this application that in spite of message given by wireless no claimant had come forward to claim this property. Learned Magistrate then passed an order on 17-9-1983 in which it was ordered that the currency notes of Rs. 61,500/- be handed over to the petitioner on furnishing security and the numbers of the currency notes may also be noted. It was further directed that the currency notes be returned to the petitioner on the condition that the said notes would be produced in the court whenever necessity will arise. 3. As regards the silver, the learned Magistrate thought it proper to make an enquiry and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in this regard. 4. The petitioner in these circumstances have challenged the above order passed by the learned Magistrate on 17-9-1983. It was contended by Mr. 3. As regards the silver, the learned Magistrate thought it proper to make an enquiry and thereafter to pass an appropriate order in this regard. 4. The petitioner in these circumstances have challenged the above order passed by the learned Magistrate on 17-9-1983. It was contended by Mr. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the currency notes are concerned, the same were not seized under section 102 Criminal Procedure Code and the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass any order in respect to currency notes under section 457 Criminal Procedure Code It was further contended that in view of the impugned order of the learned Magistrate the petitioner has been directed to furnish security to produce the amount as and when directed by the court and in view of' such order the petitioner is not in a position to utilise the currency notes, which were seized from his possession. As regards the silver, it is contended by Mr. Pathak that the petitioner has been discharged in proceedings under section 109 Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Executive Magistrate on 13-9-1983 and no case is at present pending against him nor any matter is pending for investigation before the police. It is submitted that no other person has come forward to claim the silver and it has been seized from the possession of the petitioner in an illegal manner. It was also submitted that the learned Magistrate is making an enquiry merely an the basis of conjectures and surmises and he had no jurisdiction to make any enquiry under section 457 Cr.P.C., when no other claimant has come forward to claim the silver and it is beyond doubt that it has been seized from the petitioner. It is also submitted that so far statements of Yad Ram, Nathu Ram, Lal Chand and Amar Chand have been recorded, but they are only the witnesses of seizure of the property from the petitioner and there is no material before the learned Magistrate to withhold the delivery of the silver to the petitioner. 5. On the other hand it was contended by the learned public prosecutor that under section 102 Cr.P.C , the learned Magistrate is competent to hold an enquiry before delivering the silver to the competent person. 5. On the other hand it was contended by the learned public prosecutor that under section 102 Cr.P.C , the learned Magistrate is competent to hold an enquiry before delivering the silver to the competent person. It is submitted that the order of the learned Magistrate is perfectly legal and in case he is not satisfied about the person, who is really entitled to the delivery of the silver and he has doubt that the petitioner is not really entitled to claim its delivery, then he can hold an enquiry. It is further submitted that the Magistrate is still holding an enquiry and two more witnesses have to be examined and as such no interference is called for by Court under section 482 Cr. P. C. 6. I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. So far as the currency notes are concerned, the police itself has not seized the notes under section 102 Cr.P.C and the learned Magistrate was not competent to pass any order with regard to the currency notes under section 457 Criminal Procedure Code Admittedly, the petitioner has been discharged under section 109 Criminal Procedure Code and at present no case is pending investigation or trial against the petitioner. The order of the learned Magistrate dated 17-9-1983 so far as the currency notes are concerned and returning the same on the condition of furnishing security and directing him to produce the same in the court being totally illegal and without jurisdiction, is set aside. 7. So far as silver is concerned, it is no doubt true that so far no person has come forward to claim the delivery of the silver seized from the possession of the petitioner. It is also correct that no enquiry of title can be made in proceedings under section 457 Cr.P.C., but at the same time if a person himself does not claim the property belonging to him and states that he is merely a carrier then Magistrate can hold an enquiry under section 457 Criminal Procedure Code before passing a final order for handing over the custody of such property. The learned Magistrate has already recorded the statements of 4 witnesses, but it appears that they are not relevant with regard to the delivery of the silver in question. 8. The learned Magistrate has already recorded the statements of 4 witnesses, but it appears that they are not relevant with regard to the delivery of the silver in question. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor informs that the learned Magistrate in this regard wants to examine two witnesses from whom the petitioner is alleged to have taken silver in question and he submits that a direction may be given by this Curt fixing some time and the learned Magistrate will pass suitable orders after examining those witnesses. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said at this stage that the enquiry conducted by the learned Magistrate with regard to the delivery of silver under section 457 Cr. P.C. is totally illegal and without jurisdiction so as to be interfered by this Court under its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. In view of these circumstances, the learned Magistrate is directed to complete the enquiry within one month from today and thereafter pass an appropriate order with regard to the delivery of silver seized from the possession of the petitioner. Learned Magistrate would be free to examine the witnesses which he considers necessary within the aforesaid period and pass final order within a month. *******