JUDGMENT 1. In this petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner challenges the order dated December 23,1994 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi in Criminal Case FIR No. 351/94 registered at Police Station, Kotwali, Bundi. 2. In short, the facts are that a complaint was filed by the petitioner on December 14, 1994, in the Court of concerned Magistrate and the same was forwarded to Police Station, Kotwali, Bundi under Sub-section (3) of section 156, Cr.P.C. After receipt of the complaint Crime No. 351/ 94 was registered at the Police Station. The matter relates to theft of a calf. A perusal of police diary shows that the Investigating Officer has not seized the calf, but directed the accused non-petitioner to get it medically examined for determination of age. It also appears that he further restrained the accused from selling or otherwise disposing of or parting with the calf. The petitioner moved an application in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, with a prayer to deliver the custody of the calf to him. The learned Magistrate, without notice to the accused non-petitioner directed to deliver the custody of the calf on superdignama to the petitioner vide order dated 21.12.1994. Then accused non-petitioner moved an application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on next day i.e. 22.12.1994 wherein he stated that in pursuance to the above order of the Court the police wanted to take the possession of the calf from him. He also stated that he had purchased the cow alongwith the calf from Bhagwat Swaroop Tyagi and he was entitled for its custody. The learned Magistrate passed the impugned order on 23.12.1994 on the above application and held that the calf was never seized by the police as such there was no question of giving custody of the same to the petitioner. He, therefore, withdrew his order dated 21.12.1994 and also dismissed the application of the accused holding it to be premature. 3. It was seriously contended before me by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in reviewing his earlier order whereby the calf was ordered to be given in his custody. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order be set aside as being without jurisdiction. 4. 3. It was seriously contended before me by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the learned Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in reviewing his earlier order whereby the calf was ordered to be given in his custody. He, therefore, contended that the impugned order be set aside as being without jurisdiction. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, after seeing the case diary contained that the calf was never seized and it was in possession of the accused-non-petitioner on the day when order dated 21.12.1994 was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. He further contended that after completion of the investigation the police is going to submit final report and the concerned Circle Officer has given his approval for filing the negative report before the concerned Magistrate. In reply to this the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Investigating Agency is trying to hush up the matter as the accused happened to be Assistant Sub-inspector (Wireless) in Police. It was also contended that when the accused got the calf medically examined on the direction of the Investigating Officer it should be deemed to have seized by the Police and the Magistrate had jurisdiction to pass an order for its custody. 5. I have given careful consideration to the rival contentions. Though, it would not be proper to express any opinion on merits of the case but suffice it to say that an interim order of custody under section 451, Cr.P.C. is of an interlocutory nature and the same can be withdrawn by the said Court if the circumstances so required. The order dated 21.12.1994 was passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate without obtaining any report from the Police and without any notice to the accused-non petitioner. Subsequently, when Magistrate came to know that the calf was not seized by the police in the case, he committed no error in withdrawing his order dated 21.12.1994 whereby he directed the custody of the calf of superdignama to the petitioner. The question of custody of the calf would have arisen only after seizure of the same. 6. The grievance of the petitioner that the Investigating Agency is siding the accused petitioner cannot be considered in this petition. The concerned Magistrate is competent to look into the matter if any negative report is submitted before him. The question of custody of the calf would have arisen only after seizure of the same. 6. The grievance of the petitioner that the Investigating Agency is siding the accused petitioner cannot be considered in this petition. The concerned Magistrate is competent to look into the matter if any negative report is submitted before him. He would be free to pass any appropriate order or give any direction to the police.The present petition had no merit and it is disposed of as indicated above.Petition disposed of. *******