JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - This revision is directed against the revisional order of. the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, reversing the order of the C.J.M., Puri giving custody of a pump set to the Petitioner on a petition u/s 94, Code of Criminal Procedure on the condition that the same shall continue in his custody in accordance with the terms of the agreement between the Petitioner and the opposite party until a competent court decides the agreement to be not genuine with the further direction that the pump set should be returned to the opposite party if the loan of Rs. 3000/- incurred by him is repaid. 2. The facts shortly, stated are that the opposite party filed a petition u/s 94, Code of Criminal Procedure before the G.J.M., Puri stating that be had purchased a pump set availing an agricultural loan from the Puri Co-operative Land Development Bank and was using it for his agriculture purpose. The Petitioner approached the opposite party for availing the services of the pump set to irrigate his Patol field. The opposite party hired out the pump set to the Petitioner on 1-2-1984 for 15 days on a charge of Rs. 100/- per day. When the opposite party approached the Petitioner on 16-2-1984 for return of the pump set and for payment of the hire charges, the set was not handed over to him and instead he was threatened with assault and was abused for which he came to understand that the Petitioner bad committed theft of the pump set and would not return it to him. 00 such petition, the learned G.J.M. recorded the statement of the opposite party on solemn affirmation and recorded an order on 22-2-1984 that the facts stated on oath made out a case of a commission of offence u/s 406 I.P.C. and hence directed issue of a warrant for recovery of the machine. In execution of the search warrant the pump set was seized on 24-2-1984. The set having been so seized the Petitioner moved an application u/s 451 Code of Criminal Procedure before the G.J.M. on 27-2-1984 bringing to his notice the facts that the opposite party having been in need of money had "approached his son for a loan of Rs. In execution of the search warrant the pump set was seized on 24-2-1984. The set having been so seized the Petitioner moved an application u/s 451 Code of Criminal Procedure before the G.J.M. on 27-2-1984 bringing to his notice the facts that the opposite party having been in need of money had "approached his son for a loan of Rs. 3000/- offering the pump set as a pledge and accordingly an agreement was executed by the opposite party on 13-1-1984 under which he handed over the pump set to the Petitioner on receiving the loan amount. It was the condition that the pump set was to be returned on the clearance of the loan. A photo-stat copy of the agreement was also filed along with the petition. The matter was considered by the C.J.M. who by his order passed on 16-3-1984 held that though the title of the pump set rested with the opposite party yet the Petitioner had the right to possess it on account of the agreement and hence issued the direction as referred earlier. In the revision preferred by the opposite party the learned Sessions Judge reversed the order of the C.J.M. being of the view that prima facie the opposite party being the owner of the pump set it should be allowed to remain in his custody pending determination of the genuineness of the agreement and the remedies available thereunder and directed the Officer-in-charge of Sadar Police Station to hand over the pump set to the opposite party. 3. Even though Mr. Dhal raised a submission assailing the order of the Sessions Judge that the search warrant should not have been issued by the learned C.J.M. since no, case was pending before him, yet the submission was not pressed in view of the well settled position of law that for exercise of a power by the Magistrate u/s 94 Code of Criminal Procedure, no case need be pending before him. Mohammad Serajuddin Vs. R.C. Mishra, . 4. Even though such submission fails, yet I find that the order of issue of search warrant was otherwise vitiated being not one as contemplated u/s 94, Code of Criminal Procedure at all. Undoubtedly the learned Magistrate exercised powers under that section as would appear not only from, the petition but also from the search warrant issued which was in Form No. (M)35 of the G.R. and C.O. (Criminal). Undoubtedly the learned Magistrate exercised powers under that section as would appear not only from, the petition but also from the search warrant issued which was in Form No. (M)35 of the G.R. and C.O. (Criminal). Section 94, Code of Criminal Procedure so fat as relevant for the propose of this case comes into operation if the Magistrate has reason to believe upon an information and after such enquiry as he thinks necessary that any place is used for deposit or sale of the stolen property in which event, he may issue a warrant authorising the officer to carry out the functions as directed therein. The pre-conditions thus to be satisfied before a warrant is issued are that the Magistrate must have satisfaction that the place in respect of which search, is directed is used for deposit or sale of stolen property. Unless the Magistrate has reason to believe that the place is being so used, he would have no jurisdiction to issue a search warrant. The very order of 22-2-1984 of the learned C.J.M. shows him to have been satisfied that an offence u/s 406, I.P.C. had appeared to have been committed. Nothing was recorded that he was of the view of any offence u/s 420. I.P.C. to have been committed and hence initially lacked jurisdiction to exercise the power u/s 94, Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. That apart the dispute between the parties was purely of a civil nature as had also become, apparent to the C.J.M. who on hearing both the parties on the petition filed by the Petitioner revoked the order and directed restoration of the pump set to the Petitioner pending decision on the question by a competent Court. The dispute between the parties being essentially a civil one, the power u/s 94, Code of Criminal Procedure was not available to be exercised to deprive the Petitioner's possession of the pump set. The learned Sessions Judge lost sight of such fact in allowing the revision. In doing so, he purportedly relied upon the Section 460. Code of Criminal Procedure providing that if a Magistrate not empowered to issue a search warrant u/s 94 has issued the same in good faith, the proceeding is not to be set aside merely on the ground of his being not so empowered. The question was not the. In doing so, he purportedly relied upon the Section 460. Code of Criminal Procedure providing that if a Magistrate not empowered to issue a search warrant u/s 94 has issued the same in good faith, the proceeding is not to be set aside merely on the ground of his being not so empowered. The question was not the. C.J.M. being not empowered to exercise the powers u/s 94 which power he undoubtedly had, but the question was regarding the existence of the jurisdictional facts for which the exercise of power would become available. The very pre-conditions of the section being not satisfied there was total absence of such jurisdictional facts and hence, the power could not be invoked. The order of the learned Sessions Judge as such is not supportable in law. 6. In the result the revision is allowed. The order of the learned Sessions Judge is quashed and the pump set be returned forthwith to the Petitioner. Revision allowed. Final Result : Allowed