JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition is directed against the order dated 15.2.99 passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh whereby the order dated 17.12.98 of the learned Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application of the petitioner was upheld. 2. The important questions involved in this petition are (1) Whether an immoveable property can be taken possession by the police during investigation of a case? (2) If so, whether an order for its interim custody can be passed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate? 3. Two rulings of this Court, taking contrary view on the controversy to involved in this petition, have been cited at the Bar. In the case of Mst. Narbada v. Mohammad Hanif, 1982 RLW 411 Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Sidhu, as he then was, held that the word `property' used in Section 451 Cr.PC. includes immoveable property also and the court may pass appropriate order under section 451 Cr.PC. for the interim custody of the said property. His lordship observed as follows - "An immovable property which is seized and sealed by the police during the investigation, as was the case in respect of the shop in dispute in the instant case, becomes custodial legis immediately on the magistrate receiving the police report in that behalf and taking cognisance of the case on that basis." However, diametrically opposite view has been expressed in the case of Amrit Lal Kumawat & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 1998 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 780 by Hon'ble Justice A.K. Singh. It has been held that the police is not empowered to seize immovable property under section 102 Cr.PC. and the Magistrate has no power to pass any order under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for the interim custody of the immovable property. 4. Keeping in view the divergent views expressed in the two cases, I feel that the controversy should be resolved by a larger Bench. 5. It is therefore directed that the petition be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to consider and decide the following questions of law - (i) Whether the police is empowered to seize immovable property during the investigation of a case? (ii) If so, whether the Magistrate is empowered under section 451 Cr.P.C. to order for the interim custody of the said immovable property? Matter referred to larger bench. *******