JUDGMENT 1. - None appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for non-petitioners No. 2 & 3 and perused the record of the case as well as the petition and the impugned order dated 6.11.1996. 2. It appears that on 15.7.1996 at 6.00 p.m. the residential house of Parminder Singh (non-petitioner No. 2) was searched. On conducting search Parminder Singh was found inside the house and as many as 36 articles and currency notes of the value of Rs. 6,56,650/- were found in the house. The articles as well as currency notes were seized by the Police Officer conducting search under section 102 Cr.P.C. 3. An application was moved before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur by Parminder Singh (non-petitioner No. 2) praying that the documents and the currency notes which had been recovered from his possession be returned to him as they were not required for the purpose of any inquiry or trial. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate after hearing the counsel for the applicant Parminder Singh and the Assistant Public Prosecutor passed the impugned order dated 6.11.1996 where by he allowed the application moved by Parminder Singh under section 457 Cr.P.C. and directed that the documents as well as the currency notes be given in the Supurdagi of applicant Parminder Singh and Malik Singh on their furnishing Supurdaginama's of Rs. 10 lakhs each to the satisfaction of the Court, undertaking to return their documents as well as currency notes within a period of one month if directed to do so by the Court. In pursuance of the impugned order dated 6.11.1996 Parminder Singh and Malik Singh submitted the bonds of Rs. 10 lakhs each and the documents as well as the currency notes were given in the Supurdagi. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 6.11.1996, the revenue has filed this petition u /s. 482 Cr.P.C. 5. In the petition it has been mentioned that on the basis of the information the department interrogated Shri Ranveer Singh (brother of Parminder Singh) and Sandeep Kaur (wife of Parminder Singh) and they admitted in their statements that most of the money belonged to Malik Singh (father of Parminder Singh) and that this amount was obtained by Malik Singh by selling his land about 4 years back. Malik Singh was also intended to be interrogated but he declined to give statement on the ground that he was not feeling well. It is further stated in the petition filed by the revenue that the amount which had been recovered by the Police from the house of non-petitioners No. 2 & 3 they are unaccounted and had not been disclosed for the purpose of payment of tax and, therefore, the warrant of authorisation was issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Jodhpur under section 132-A(1) of the Income Tax Act and it was addressed to the Station House Officer of the Police Station, Bhopalpura, Udaipur requesting him to hand over the documents and the currency notes to the Officer empowered by the Income Tax Department. Since the documents and the currency notes were not delivered to the revenue, this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer that the impugned order dated 6.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 3, Udaipur be set aside and the entire amount be given to the petitioner (Department). 6. I have carefully considered the grounds mentioned in the petition, the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons given by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for passing the impugned order. There is no dispute in it that the documents and currency note were recovered by the Police Officers during the search conducted under section 102 Cr.P.C. It further appears from the record that the documents and the currency notes were note required for the purpose of any inquiry or trial and, therefore, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was legally competent to pass suitable orders under section 457 Cr.P.C. regarding the custody or disposal of the documents as well as of the currency notes which had been seized by the Police Officer. The petitioner did not satisfy the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate that the Income Tax Department was entitled to obtain possession of the documents as well as the currency notes recovered by the Police and, therefore, no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that he has given the documents and the currency notes in the Supurdagi of non-petitioners No. 2 & 3 on their furnishing Supurdaginamas of Rs. A perusal of the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shows that he has given the documents and the currency notes in the Supurdagi of non-petitioners No. 2 & 3 on their furnishing Supurdaginamas of Rs. 10 lakhs each and the impugned order further directs the non-petitioners No. 2 Sr 3 to deposit the documents as the currency notes within one month if order to do so by the Court. It has also been made clear by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate in the impugned order that Income Tax Department shall be free to take such steps as it may deem fit under the Income Tax Act. 7. In view of the above circumstances, there is no justification for interfering with the impugned order dated 6.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Udaipur. If the Income Tax Department, wants to recover any Income Tax from the non-petitioners No. 2 & 3 there is nothing in the impugned order which may come in the way of Income Tax Department. 8. For above reasons this petition has no force, it deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******