A. B. MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE revisional application has been preferred against the orders dated 30-11-95 and 4-12-95 passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Sealdah in complaint case No. C-508 of 1995 (I. R. Case No. 126 of 1995 ). ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioners is that O. P. No. 1 being the wife of petitioner No. 1 started a case under S. 498a and 406, I. P. C. against the present petitioners being the husband's brother-in-law and mother-in-law respectively with an ulterior motive. The allegation made in the complaint case in short is that after marriage she used to be ill-treated by the petitioners and the gold ornaments entrusted to them were not returned to her. The learned Magistrate without assigning any reason issued process and also search warrant for recovery of alleged stolen articles which is the subject matter of alleged breach of trust. The petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested following issuance of compelling process and subsequently released on bail. Warrant of arrest issued against petitioner No. 3 was however stayed by this Court. The issuance of compelling process at the first instance and also search warrant without any reasonable cause as also the release of some of the seized articles in favour of O. P. No. 1 on bond have been challenged. ( 3 ) IT has been argued for the petitioners that warrant of arrest was issued at the first instance in a complaint case and search warrant has also been issued without assigning any adequate reason. The order of rejection of bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate has been criticised. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, it has been argued for O. P. No. 1, the search warrant was executed and the seized articles were also given in Jimma of C. P. No. 1. Warrant of arrest was also executed regarding petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and regarding No. 3, it has been stayed. It is argued that since property is in Jimma, no order should be passed regarding final disposal so long the case under S. 406, I. P. C. is not disposed of. It has also been alleged that issuance of search warrant is a curable irregularity under S. 460, Cr. 1 and 2 and regarding No. 3, it has been stayed. It is argued that since property is in Jimma, no order should be passed regarding final disposal so long the case under S. 406, I. P. C. is not disposed of. It has also been alleged that issuance of search warrant is a curable irregularity under S. 460, Cr. P. C. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the O. P. No. 2, namely, the State the order has been supported as legal. ( 6 ) THE admitted position is that there is a complaint by O. P. No. 1 and after examination of the O. P. No. 1, process under Ss. 498 (A) and 406, I. P. C. were issued. Simultaneously, search warrant was also issued. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were brought under arrest and their bail was also rejected by the Judicial Magistrate but subsequently, they were released on bail by higher Courts. Search warrant was also executed and some of the seized articles were given to O. P. No. 1 being the complaintant of the said case on bond with certain directions. Therefrom, the issue before me has become more or less academic in nature to a large extent. ( 7 ) I have carefully perused the impugned orders. So far as issuance of process is concerned. I do not find any illegality since the Magistrate after being satisfied about the presence of ingredients under Ss. 498 (A) and 406, I. P. C. issued the process. Corroboration by a witness to the statement of complainant given in course of initial deposition is not essential if Magistrate taking cognizance, is satisfied from a scrutiny of the complaint and the statement of the complainant about the presence of ingredients of the Sections for which processes are issued. There is also no illegality as because warrant was issued at the first instance. There is no law which bars issuance of a compelling process at the first instance in a complaint case under S. 204, Cr. P. C. The Magistrate is competent to issue warrant of arrest even at the first instance if the offence in question is a warrant case. This being a warrant case, the order of the Magistrate is justified. ( 8 ) REGARDING the issuance of search warrant the learned Magistrate is certainly at fault. P. C. The Magistrate is competent to issue warrant of arrest even at the first instance if the offence in question is a warrant case. This being a warrant case, the order of the Magistrate is justified. ( 8 ) REGARDING the issuance of search warrant the learned Magistrate is certainly at fault. Some of the decisions on this point may be referred to since they have been cited at the Bar. Reference may be made to a decision reported in 1985 Cr LJ 1517 (Ker ). The Magistrate must assign the reasons behind the satisfaction before issuing a search warrant. Issuance of search warrant is not a formal one but the Magistrate must be satisfied about the deposit of stolen property and after recording his satisfaction on a proper application of mind, he is to issue the same. Issuance of search warrant in mechanical manner has been deprecated in the case reported in 1983 Cr LJ 321 (Kant) which lays down that the issuing of a search warrant must be speaking order and in the event of a mechanical issue of a search warrant it must be set aside. The decision reported in 1988 Cr LJ 1876 (AP) also requires recording of prima facie satisfaction of the Magistrate. So also the case reported in 1980 Cr LJ 196 (SC ). Without burdening the discussion by citing other decisions referred by the learned Advocates, it can safely be said that in the present case the learned Magistrate did not apply his mind so to say at all while issuing the search warrant. It is true, that property which is the subject matter of a case under S. 406, I. P. C. shall be deemed to be a stolen property and as such search warrant can also be issued. If we scrutinise the order dated 30-11-95 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate it will appear that without any application of mind he issued the same. To quote the learned Judicial Magistrate "petition under S. 94, Cr. P. C. for search warrant appears to be bona fide. Hence, the petition is allowed. Issue search warrant accordingly". This is not the manner in which search warrant is to be issued. To quote the learned Judicial Magistrate "petition under S. 94, Cr. P. C. for search warrant appears to be bona fide. Hence, the petition is allowed. Issue search warrant accordingly". This is not the manner in which search warrant is to be issued. It is an extraordinary remedy which is availed by a party when his adversory is not present and as such the authority issuing search warrant must give his reasons for taking this extraordinary course of action specially when he is issuing the same straightway without directing any show cause to be given by the other side. Apart from the decisions cited earlier even the wording of S. 94, Cr. P. C. sufficiently shows that a duty is cast on the issuing authority to make an enquiry as he thinks it necessary before issuing any process of this nature. However, in the present case search warrant has already been executed and the articles in question appear to have been given in Jimma of O. P. No. 1. In that view of the matter even if the impugned order is not in accordance with law, this Court will not interfere. ( 9 ) SO far as the prayer contained in the revisional application for return of the seized article the same cannot obviously be passed at the stage since the criminal case under S. 406, I. P. C. is pending. The articles are lying in Jimma of one of the parties are required to be produced during trial. The proper order to be passed about the said article can only be made at the time of disposal of the criminal case on merit. Accordingly, the prayer for return of the seized article to the petitioner cannot be entertained at this stage. So far as, accused petitioner No. 3 is concerned, warrant of arrest issued against her shall not be executed for a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court by the lower Court within which she is to surrender before the concerned Court which shall consider her prayer for bail, if any, keeping in view circumstance of this case and the fact that rest of the accused-petitioner are on bail. In the event the accused petitioner No. 3 does not surrender within the stated period. Warrant of arrest shall be executed in accordance with law. Order accordingly.