JUDGMENT 1. 1. It is noticed that in cases of disposal of property the Magistracy does not correctly appreciate and interpret the provisions contained in Chapter XXXIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which deals with disposal of property. The distinctions between Section 451 and Section 452 of the Code on the one hand and Section 457 on the other are clear and well demarcated by the Code. 2. In the instant case, the Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar-lake has purported to have passed an order under Section 451 of the Code regarding interim custody of tractor bearing No. RRG-6265. Section 102 of the Code provides that any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commissioner, of any. Every police officer acting under Sub-section (1) has forthwith to report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be conveniently transported to the Court. He may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same. 3. There can be two types of cases. First type can be where any property alleged or suspected to have been stolen has been seized by a police officer and is produced before any criminal court during any inquiry or trial. It is only in such cases where any property is produced before any criminal Court during inquiry or trial that the criminal Court can pass an order for interim custody under Section 451, Cr. P. C. pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial. When the inquiry or trial is concluded, an order for disposal of the property is made under Section 452 of the Code. There may be other types of cases where the property seized is not produced before a criminal Court during an inquiry or trial and it is only seized and the seizure is reported to the Magistrate under the provisions of the Code. In such cases only Section 457 of the Code applies. There may be other types of cases where the property seized is not produced before a criminal Court during an inquiry or trial and it is only seized and the seizure is reported to the Magistrate under the provisions of the Code. In such cases only Section 457 of the Code applies. In the instant case, it is clear that the Judicial Magistrate Sambhar-lake has noted that the police has given a final report after investigation and has not put up a charge-sheet. There is nothing on the record to show that the tractor in question. was produced before the Judicial Magistrate during any inquiry or trial. In the absence of such production, the Judicial Magistrate should not pass any order under Section 451. It is also not clear whether only a seizure of the tractor was reported as required by Section 102 (3) of the Code, without the tractor being produced ? Had the case been of this type, the Magistrate should have proceeded under the provisions of Section 457 of the Code. 4. It is, however, clear that the tractor was not produced before the Magistrate during an inquiry or trial. There was a final report before the Magistrate and the Magistrate had to apply his mind to the final report-whether to take cognizance of the or not. That mind was not at all applied and there could be no question of the tractor being produced before the trial (sic court) during the trial. No inquiry was pending. In such circumstances, the order of the Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar-lake under Section 451 of the Code cannot be sustained. 5. I allow this petition, set aside the order of the Judicial Magistrate Sambhar-lake dated November 3, 1988 and remand the matter to him with the direction that he should, after understanding the distinction pointed out between the provisions of Section 451 and Section 452 of the Code on the one hand and Section 457 of the Code on the other. proceed to decide the matter. In case, he accepts the final report, he has to make the disposal under Section 452, Cr. P. C. In case, he takes cognizance and the tractor is produced he has to act under Section 451 of the Code. In case, only seizure has been reported to him, he has to act under Section 457 of the Code. In case, he accepts the final report, he has to make the disposal under Section 452, Cr. P. C. In case, he takes cognizance and the tractor is produced he has to act under Section 451 of the Code. In case, only seizure has been reported to him, he has to act under Section 457 of the Code. At this stage, the case does not appear in which an order could be passed under Section 451 because it has not been shown that the tractor was produced before the Judicial Magistrate on there being any inquiry or trial. The question of interim custody could arise only after the production of the tractor during inquiry or trial. For that, he will have to apply his mind to the final report and decide whether he is taking cognizance of the or not, because on that would depend the mode of disposal. 6. With the above observations, the case is remanded to the Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar-lake. In the meantime, Kailash Chandra will remain bound by the undertaking given by him to produce the tractor before the Judicial Magistrate whenever called upon to do so at his own expenses. The Judicial Magistrate is directed to decide the matter within two months after the receipt of the record by him. The parties through their counsel have been intimated by this Court to appear before him on 11th May, 1989.Petition allowed. *******