R. P. SHUKLA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code moved by one Hasnain, praying that the order, dated 15/1/1982, passed by the Magistrate and that of the Seventh Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoria, dated 11/6/1982. (Annexure II and to the petition) be quashed and praying further that the two disputed bullocks be released in his favour. ( 2 ) THE relevant facts of the case are that Smt. Nairunnissa, wife of Abid Ali, filed an execution application on 21/2/1979 for the enforcement of the order passed under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code, against her husband, Abid Ali. The Magistrate acting under Section 125 (3), Criminal Procedure Code passed an order of attachment of the property of Abid Ali and the police in compliance of the said order attached a she-buffalo and two bullocks. ( 3 ) THE present applicant moved an application before the Magistrate claiming the she-buffalo and the bullocks as his own and prayed for their release in his favour. The Magistrate directed an inquiry on this application and asked the parties to adduce their evidence. The parties adduced their evidence on affidavits of witnesses and filed documents. The Magistrate on 15. 1. 1982 released the she buffalo in favour of the applicant and ordered the auction of the two bullocks and he also ordered that the auction money be deposited in the court for being paid to Smt. Nairunnissa opposite party, towards the payment of her maintenance allowance. Aggrieved by this order of the Magistrate, the applicant preferred revision which was ultimately dismissed by the Seventh Additional Sessions Judge, Deoria. Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate and the order of the Sessions Judge, Hasnain, the applicant has moved the present application under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code and has contended firstly that the order of the Magistrate and that of the revisional Court is manifestly erroneous and illegal because the evidence adduced has not been properly and reasonably appreciated by the two courts below. A reasonable appreciation of evidence would lead to the conclusion that the bullocks belonged to the applicant and ought to be released in his favour. A reasonable appreciation of evidence would lead to the conclusion that the bullocks belonged to the applicant and ought to be released in his favour. Secondly, it has been contended by the applicant that his claim for the bullocks could not be decided on affidavits though this contention has Dot been raised any where in his petition but his counsel based this argument on the observation, a legal point arises in the case whether the objection of Hasnain could be decided on affidavits made by Honble P. N. Goel, J. in his order admitting he present petition on 8. 7. 1982. ( 4 ) AS regards the first contention of the applicant, it is clear that this is a case in which there is an evidence which, on its appreciation, mayor may not support the claim of the applicant. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code would not embark upon an inquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. Ordinarily, it would not be open to any party to invoke the High Courts inherent Jurisdiction and contend that, on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence, the claim of the parties can be sustained. Thus, the findings of fact arrived at by the two courts below, on appreciation of the evidence of the parties, will not be disturbed by re-appreciation of evidence by this Court. Section 125 (3), Criminal Procedure Code lays down: If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying times, made. The recovery of fine is to be made as laid down under Section 421 Criminal Procedure Code under this section, the recovery of the fine can be made in the following ways: (1) The court may issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the defaulter. (2) It may issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defa ulter. In the instant case, the Magistrate proceeded to attach the movable property belonging to Abid Ali. (2) It may issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defa ulter. In the instant case, the Magistrate proceeded to attach the movable property belonging to Abid Ali. After attachment of the she buffalo and the two bullocks, the applicant claimed them to be his property and filed objection which was decided by the Magistrate as aforesaid, ( 5 ) SECTION 421 (2), Criminal Procedure Code lays down the procedure for the execution of the warrant for levy of the amount by attachment and sale and speaks of summary determination of any claim made by any person other than the defaulter in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant. In the instant case, Hasnain, applicant, claims the attached bullocks and the she-buffalo and, therefore the Magistrate proceed to inquire into his claim as contemplated by Section 84, Criminal procedure Code. His claim was allowed in part. The she-buffalo was released in his favour; but the bullocks were ordered to be auctioned. ( 6 ) WHILE inquiring into the claim of the applicant, the Magistrate ordered, the parties to file affidavits and documents in support of their claim. The applicant filed his own affidavit, affidavit of his father, affidavits of Gokhila and 8aleshwar Singh and few other affidavits and he also filed the original receipt regarding the purchase of bullocks. Hasnain, the applicant, filed a copy of the Kutumb register to show that he was living separately from his brother and father, namely, Abid Ali and Ghafoor etc. From the other side, the affidavits of the father of Nairunnissa and the Station Officer, who attached the property were filed. The Station Officer also filed a copy of Kutumb register to show that Hasnain, the applicant, Abid Ali, the defaulter husband of Nairunnissa and Ghafoor and others were members of one family. Thet Magistrate discussed the documents and the affidavits of the parties and allowed the claim of the applicant in part as aforesaid. It will not be out of place to mention here that the applicant neither applied to the Magistrate that he would cross -examine any of the witnesses whose affidavits have been filed nor he objected to Magistrates accepting evidence of witnesses on affidavits. It will not be out of place to mention here that the applicant neither applied to the Magistrate that he would cross -examine any of the witnesses whose affidavits have been filed nor he objected to Magistrates accepting evidence of witnesses on affidavits. Section 296 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Jays down that the evidence of any person whose evidence is of formal character may be given by affidavit and may, subject to all just exception read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceedings under this Code and section 297 of the same Code speaks of aulhoriti before, whom affidavits may be sworn. It has not been challenged that the affidavits were not properly, s worn in. Order 19, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure also lays down. Any court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the court thinks reasonable provided that where it appears to the court that either party bona fide desires the production of a witness for cross-examination, and that such witness can be produced an order shall not be made authorising the evidence of such witness to be given by affidavit. ( 7 ) THUS, it is clear that affidavits can be admitted in evidence if they are properly sword, and, while appreciating the evidence, the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to affidavits along with other documentary or other evidence. In this case, the Magistrate has discussed the documentary evidence and the affidavits. The Magistrate can determine the evidentiary value of the affidavits e\ten by assigning, common ground. All that is necessary is that the order passed by the Magistrate should show that he has brought his judicial mind to bear upon the contents of the affidavit. My attention has been drawn to the observation of the Seventh Additional District and Sessions Judge, Deoria, in Criminal Revision No. , 24 of 1982: Hasnain v. (1) State of U. P. and (2) Smt. Nairunnissa, opposite-parties. In paragraph 3 of his judgment, he says the Code does not prescribe a definite procedure for deciding the claim of the third person against attachment under Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code. In paragraph 3 of his judgment, he says the Code does not prescribe a definite procedure for deciding the claim of the third person against attachment under Section 421, Criminal Procedure Code. In the result the court has to evolve its own procedure for inquiring into the matter. It is in the light of this observation of the Additional Sessions Judge that argument has been advanced to lay down a procedure for such an inquiry. Section 421 (2), Criminal Procedure Code speaks of summary determination of any claim made by any person other than the defaulter in respect of any property attached in execution of such warrant. This is the procedure for determining the claim of the third party. The Magistrate proceeded to summarily determine the claim of Hasnain and hence accepted the affidavits in evidence. I do not see any impropriety or illegality therein. If Hasnain was aggrieved, by summary determination of his claim, he could very well go to civil court for the determination of his rights and claim. ( 8 ) SECTION 84, Criminal Procedure Code says down in sub-clause (4) Any person whose claim or objection has been disallowed in sole or in part by an order under sub-section (1) may within a period of one year from the date of such order institute a suit to establish the right which he claims in respect of the property in dispute; but subject to the result of such suit, if any, the order shall be conclusive. ( 9 ) THE proper course, in the Circumstances of the instant case for the applicant, was to file a suit to establish the right which he claims in respect of the property in dispute. The power under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code is not to be resorted 10 if there is specific provision in the Code for the redress of the grievances of the aggrieved party or that if should not be exercised as against the express bar of law engrafted in any other provisions of the Code. There are the guidelines laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Madhulimaya v. State of Maharashtra1. Thus, in the instant case, the application appears to be misconceived. ( 10 ) IN the result, the application fails and is dismissed. The interim order, dated 8-7-1982, passed by this Court, is vacated. Application dismissed. .