U. P. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is med under Section 397, Cr. P. C. , for revising the order passed by the chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, dated 18-11-1981 whereby he recalled his earlier order dated 28-9-1981, which related to giving the custody of buffalo to the applicant. The order dated 18-11-1981 was recalled on the ground that the order previously passed was without jurisdiction and as such he was not competent to deal with the property. ( 2 ) THE case of the applicant is that he purchased a buffalo on 14-6-1981 from Kutter market and subsequently on 9-9-1981 one S. I. Han Prasad alongwith other policemen and other persons came to his village Rajapur and told the applicant that he is keeping a stolen buffalo, which he took away forcibly to P. S. Ghaziabad. When the applicant approached the S. I. for tile return of the buffalo, he did not return the buffalo and made the applicant to go away. Thereafter the applicant moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, on 22-9-1981 by means of an application for giving the buffalo to him. On 28-9-1981 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad, passed the following order: No report received inspite or opportunity given twice. Buffalo be given in the supurdagi of the applicant on his executing surety of Rs. 4,000/- with the P. S. in the like amount. Applicant to produce as and when required. ( 3 ) THIS order was subsequently recalled by him as has been stated earlier. In this case, it is not disputed that the said seizure of buffalo was not reported to the Magistrate by the police as required under Section 457, Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the scope of Section 457, Cr. P. C. , is wide enough to cover in its range all the seizures irrespective of the fact whether they are reported or not to the Magistrate. He further submits that it is not a condition precedent for exercise of the jurisdiction by the Magistrate that the seizure must have been report by the police to the Magistrate. Section 457, Cr. P. C. is as reproduced below: 457. He further submits that it is not a condition precedent for exercise of the jurisdiction by the Magistrate that the seizure must have been report by the police to the Magistrate. Section 457, Cr. P. C. is as reproduced below: 457. Procedure by Police upon seizure of property:- (1) Whenever the seizure of property by any Police Officer is reported to a Magistrate under the provisions of this code, and such property is not produced before a Criminal Court during an inquiry or trial, the Magistrate may make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or the delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof or if such person cannot be ascertained respecting the custody and production of such property. (2) If the person so entitled is known, the Magistrate may order the property to be delivered to him on such conditions (If any) as the, Magistrate thinks fit and if such person is unknown, the Magistrate may detain it and shall, in such case, issue a proclamation specifying the articles of which such property consists, and requiring any person who may have a claim thereto, to appear before him and establish his claim within six months from the date of such proclamation. ( 5 ) UNDER this Section, it is the duty of a Police Officer to report any seizure made by him to the Magistrate and also to produce the property so seized before the Magistrate. The only condition is that the stage must not be the stage of trial or inquiry. For the stage of trial or inquiry, there is different provisions in the Code. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the applicant in support of his submission has relied upon a case MY. Raman Kutti v. State. In that case, the position was that the Police reported the seizure of a car to the Magistrate, but the Police did not produce the car in Court. The Magistrate rejected the application for release of the car stating that the Police did not produce the car in Court and that the question of releasing the car could arise only when the car is produced in Court. This order was set aside by holding that the Magistrate is not powerless to act under Section 523, Cr. The Magistrate rejected the application for release of the car stating that the Police did not produce the car in Court and that the question of releasing the car could arise only when the car is produced in Court. This order was set aside by holding that the Magistrate is not powerless to act under Section 523, Cr. P. C. (Old) until the police report regarding the seizure of the property is received by him. The view that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction in this case before the property is produced before the Court, was held to be unwarranted. ( 7 ) THE scope of Section 457 is widened in the sense that it is made to have general application in all cases of seizures of the property by the Police Officer, but such seizures are reported to the Magistrate under the provisions of the Code, but not produced before the, Magistrate and Section 457 provides for the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate for disposal of the property in such event ( 8 ) IN M/s. Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram Jam v. State of U. P. . Supreme Court said that Section 523, Cr. P. C. (old) provides for the procedure for the safe custody of seized goods. It lays down, inter alia that the seizure by any Police Officer of property taken under Section 51 shall be forthwith reported to the Magistrate, who shall make such order as he thinks fit respecting the disposal of such property or delivery of such property to the person entitled to the possession thereof or if such person cannot be ascertained, respecting the custody and production of such property. ( 9 ) A plain reading of the language of Section 457, Cr. P. C. , also makes it clear that regarding the seizure of the property by any Police Officer it must be reported to the Magistrate and thereupon the magistrate acquired the jurisdiction to pass suitable orders whether the property seized was produced before him or not, but it is not so when the seizure is not reported to the Magistrate. ( 10 ) HOW the seized property would be maintained or kept or to be held by the police is a matter regulated by the police Regulations. ( 10 ) HOW the seized property would be maintained or kept or to be held by the police is a matter regulated by the police Regulations. ( 11 ) THE impugned order passed by the Magistrate suffers from no infirmity as it is always, open to the Court to withdraw its order if it is found to be without jurisdiction. Any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity in the eye of law. The Magistrate, thus, did not act beyond the scope of his authority in passing the impugned order. However, it would be open to the applicant to avail such remedy as he may be advised for the recovery of the seized property and also for damages. The revision has no substance and is dismissed. Petition dismissed .