RAJESHWAR SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS application under S. 482 Cr. P. C. has been moved under the circumstances mentioned below. ( 2 ) THE three applicants before this Court and the opposite party No. 1 Awadh Ram claim themselves to be the nephews of one deceased Smt. Sarju Dei. She was murdered in her house. In respect of that murder, opposite party No. 2 Ram Milan son of opposite party No. 1 was prosecuted but he was acquitted on 22-2-83. It appears that when the Investigating Officer went at the place of occurrence, he also gave the moveable property found in the house in the custody of one of the applicants and his wife. This property had nothing to do with the commission of offence. On 25-10-83 that is more than 8 months after acquittal, opposite party No. 1 Awadh Ram moved an application to the Additional Sessions Judge, who decided the case saying that the property be given to him. Therein he said that the house where Smt. Sarju Dei was murdered, was sold to him by Smt. Sarju Dei in her lifetime. The Additional Sessions Judge called for a report from the police. The police did not say as to from whose possession the property was seized; rather report of the police was that house was really sold by Smt. Sarju Dei to opposite party No. 1 Awadh Ram. Thereupon the Additional Sessions Judge passed an order that in view of the report of the police, the property that was mentioned in the memo, be given in possession of Awadh Ram, opposite party No. 1. The police went at the spot and it gave moveable property regarding which recovery memo was prepared along with the house in possession of Awadh Ram, opposite party No. 1. Then the applicants filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge saying that the house was not taken in possession by the police and there was no order in respect of it; so the same should not be given in possession of opposite party No. 1 Awadh Ram. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed this application saying that if police had committed excess the court cannot correct it as it has got no inherent powers and only High Court has inherent powers. It is against this order that the present application has been filed. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed this application saying that if police had committed excess the court cannot correct it as it has got no inherent powers and only High Court has inherent powers. It is against this order that the present application has been filed. ( 3 ) FIRSTLY, it may be pointed out that there does not appear any question of the Additional Sessions Judge having or not having inherent powers. It may not have inherent powers but if its order was being executed and in execution of that order the executing agency had gone beyond the scope of its order, it can ask the executing agency to undo that part and enforce compliance of its order. It could not be refused by the executing agency. After all the executing agency was doing nothing on its behalf. It was purporting to act on behalf of the court and if on wrong interpretation of the order it did some thing which was not authorised to be done by the court, the court can ask the same executing agency to undo that part of which the execution which was done in view of the wrong interpretation. If the court is deprived of such powers of enforcement of proper execution of its order, then unnecessary complications will arise. Every court has power to ensure that its orders are executed properly and to the extent to which it desires to be executed and anything done in excess of it can be undone by the court. Therefore, the view of the Additional Sessions Judge that he could do nothing as he had no inherent powers does not appear to be correct. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, the initial order passed by the Sessions Judge for delivery has also come to the notice of this Court and this Court has power to examine it by way of revision or under Ss. 482 and 483 Cr. P. C. That there is no abuse of the process of the court and the Sessions Court has exercised its powers properly. ( 5 ) THE power regarding disposal of property at the time of conclusion of trial is contained in S. 452 Cr. P. C. This power is exercised when trial is concluded. 482 and 483 Cr. P. C. That there is no abuse of the process of the court and the Sessions Court has exercised its powers properly. ( 5 ) THE power regarding disposal of property at the time of conclusion of trial is contained in S. 452 Cr. P. C. This power is exercised when trial is concluded. That does not necessarily mean that order for disposal of property should be incorporated in the judgement itself but it can be within a reasonable time even thereafter. In the case before us the court did not consider this point and it passed order on an application that was given after 8 months. The order itself was passed after ten months. The order under this Section can be passed in respect of the property that is produced before the court or is in its custody. The court below never considered it whether the property has been produced before it or was in its custody. It was also not a property regarding which the offence had been committed. Sub-Sec. (3) of Sec. 452 Cr. P. C. empowers the Sessions Court to direct that the property be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and then the Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeds in accordance with Ss. 457 and 458 Cr. P. C. They provide for some sort of enquiry when owner is not known. So if the Sessions Court is unable to decide the matter, it is sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate who can make some sort of summary enquiry according to the provisions of Ss. 457 and 458 Cr. P. C. Moreover, there was no material before the Additional Sessions Judge to decide the matter. He just asked for a report from the police and the police never said in its report as to from whose possession the property was seized and it rather said that there was a sale-deed in respect of the house in favour of opposite party No. 1. It was on this report that the Additional Sessions Judge passed the order for delivery of moveable property, regarding sale of which there was no report to opposite party No. 1. It was on this report that the Additional Sessions Judge passed the order for delivery of moveable property, regarding sale of which there was no report to opposite party No. 1. Thus the Additional Sessions Judge did not decide the question as to from whom the property was seized or to whom it belonged prima facie and he simply said that in view of the police report he was passing order of delivery of the property. ( 6 ) THUS there was no application of mind. So, this order dated 19-12-83 that was passed initially for delivery of moveable property too cannot be maintained. I, therefore, quash the orders dated 19-12-83 and 9-1-84 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge. and direct that he shall proceed afresh to dispose of the applications according to law. Order accordingly. .