Judgment : The criminal revision is filed under Secs. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by one Mahendran, claiming to be the owner of the currencies to the extent of Rs.2,06,000 seized by the first respondent Inspector of Police, Paramakudi on 30.3.1995 in a lodge, while his so called agent and servant Abubacker was sitting in the Lodge for the purpose of his business transaction entrusted with him. The currencies were seized on suspicion followed by registering a case under Sec.41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case property was produced. Subsequently, it appears that on filing a petition under Sec.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner, he got the temporary custody of the currencies referred to above with a condition to reproduce the same into the court, whenever he is required to do so. However, on coming to know of the said case, the Enforcement Officer of the Directorate, of Enforcement, Madurai Branch the third respondent herein had filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate for the return of the said money for the purpose of investigation, as it involved the violation of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA Act). On a careful consideration of the two petitions with the objections by both parties, learned Judicial Magistrate has passed a common order in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos.1880 and 2006 of 1995 on 7. 1995, rejecting the claim of the third respondent herein, giving directions to the petitioner to reproduce the money, but at the same time directed the petitioner to return the money to the court custody. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner claiming to be the owner of the property has come forward with this revision and on ordering notice of motion Mr.Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent submitted that he has no objection to get himself impleaded as a party in this revision. The contention made by learned Government Advocate on the last hearing was also the same and accordingly, the said technicality was fully complied with. .2. The contention made by learned Government Advocate on the last hearing was also the same and accordingly, the said technicality was fully complied with. .2. Mr.G.R. Edmund, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that firstly the learned Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to revise his own order passed on the earlier occasion by a subsequent order varying the same without any reasoning and secondly the petitioner had produced reliable documents viz., copy of the Income Tax return to establish that the money in question viz., Rs. 2,06,000 absolutely belongs to him, which was handed over to Mr.Abubacker for the purpose of purchasing and selling second hand transport vehicles and which money was recovered by the first respondent during the relevant point of time on the pretext of suspicion under Sec.41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That was perhaps the reason, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner to contend that the petitioner was the genuine owner of the money and that the custody of the money was handed over to him under Sec.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the intervening request made by the third respondent, as if the petitioner has violated the provisions of the FERA is not correct and consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, while rejecting the request made by the third respondent and directing the petitioner to reproduce the money into court is not correct and lacking every propriety and legality. Learned counsel for the petitioner, would however contend that while seizing the above quantum of money from Abubacker on the relevant date, since there was no foreign mark on the currency, the chance of violating the provisions of FERA is too remote. 3. Per contra, Mr.Kumar, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the third respondent would contend that though Indian currency was seized, it may also be deemed to be the property coming within the definition clause provided in Sec.33 of the FERA and that therefore the third respondent is empowered to investigate the matter under the relevant provisions of the FERA and for that purpose he made a claim before the learned Judicial Magistrate for the re-production of the said money into court. However, it was rejected. 4. However, it was rejected. 4. In the context of the rival circumstances, I have gone though the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, impugned in this revision as well as the respective plea projected on behalf of the rival parties. It is noticed at this stage that the learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the copies of the documents and statements proved by the Income Tax Authorities to show that the money in question absolutely belongs to the petitioner. It is further stated that he has got some documents to show that he has entrusted the same with his agent or servant by name Abubacker. Under such circumstances, the entrust-ment of the money made already with him by learned Magistrate is perfectly correct and under such circumstances, the third respondent has nothing to do with it. This plea was controverted however by learned counsel for the third respondent on the ground that a file has been opened against the petitioner and the matter is probed in accordance with the provisions of the FERA by the third respondent. Under such circumstances, it was contended that the said money is required. .5. It is noticed at this juncture that the learned Magistrate has already entrusted the temporary custody of the money with the petitioner for one reason or other by virtue of Sec.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the petitioner was also having the temporary custody of the property in question and accordingly, the petitioner is bound to reproduce the same into court, whenever he is required to do so. Thus, the custody of the money by the petitioner is deemed to be the custody of the court and thus, the provisions of Sec.451 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have completely been implemented and complied with. It was the finding of the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order that while the temporary custody of the property was entrusted with the petitioner, the question relating to the title of the petitioner to the property in question has not been looked at all with reference to the source of the ownership as now being relied upon. It was the finding of the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order that while the temporary custody of the property was entrusted with the petitioner, the question relating to the title of the petitioner to the property in question has not been looked at all with reference to the source of the ownership as now being relied upon. But at the same time, the claim of the third respondent was also not substantiated with reference to the requirement of the money in question to be entrusted to him, since no material of any kind had been placed before the learned Magistrate. It was only under those circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order, directing the petitioner to return the money to the custody of the court and rejected the claim of the third respondent. No other point was urged by learned counsel appearing for either parties. 6. Having considered the whole gamut of the case in the context, particularly when the money has already been entrusted to the petitioner by the learned Magistrate, there is no valid reason in the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate to reproduce the money whenever the petitioner is required to do so. No substantial reason also has been given in the case. So also the fact that either the first respondent or the third respondent has come forward with substantial materials to show that the requirement of the money in question to them for the purpose of investigation. The request by either of the parties has been made only on the pretext of the ownership and investigation and to ascertain the same in accordance with law. Therefore, legal exercise in the name of an enquiry, giving an opportunity to both parties to adduce both oral and documentary evidence before the trial court has become absolutely necessary. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I am fully satisfied to hold that the impugned order lacks every legality and propriety and accordingly, I hereby set aside the same. But at the same time, I remit the whole matter back to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate for consideration of the matter afresh by giving opportunity to both sides so as to enable them to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary in accordance with the relevant procedural law. But at the same time, I remit the whole matter back to the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate for consideration of the matter afresh by giving opportunity to both sides so as to enable them to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary in accordance with the relevant procedural law. Till then, the custody of the property vested with the revision petitioner need not be disturbed, as already ordered. 7. In the light of the explanation provided under Sec.33 of the FERA, I am not in a position to countenance the arguments advanced by the Bar on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Indian currency does not come within the definition of Sec.33 of the Act. 8. For the reasons mentioned above, I hereby allow the criminal revision case for the limited purpose and set aside the impugned order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate. However, the entire matter is remitted back to the Judicial Magistrate for the disposal of the matter afresh in the manner known to and in accordance with law. No costs.