H.L. Anand, J.
(1) Until a complaint or a report of the commission of an offence had been filed by an appropriate authority, no court was competent to proceed in a matter with regard to the impounding of an animal and that the only way in which the impounded animal could be released was as envisaged by the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 418.
(2) The provisions of Sections 451 to 459 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not be invoked in the case of impounding, under the Corporation Act because neither the Court was seized of a complaint nor had the property been produced before the court. Section 457 was also not attracted.
(3) There is, thereforee, no escape from the conclusion that the impugned order of the learned Magistrate was wholly without jurisdiction and the impounded animals in the circumstances could be released only by the municipal authorities concerned under Section 418 on payment of certain charges, including folding charges.
(4) FACTS-IN-BRIEF Two buffaloes belonging to the respondent were impounded by the Municipal authorities on January 14, 1980 under Section 32, 417 and 418 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The respondent instead of approaching the municipal authorities for release on payment of feeding and other charges made an application on January 17, 1980 to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate; and the report of the municipal authorities was sought. From the report the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the buffaloes had been impounded under the aforesaid provisions, and thereforee ordered their release the aforesaid provisions, and thereforee ordered their release. As for the feeding charges of the animal, the learned Magistrate held that the orders of payment would be passed at the time of decision of Corporation case which would be produced in the court at a later date.
(5) The M.C.D. sought a review of the order, but the learned magistrate refused to review the same. The present petition was filed against the order of the learned magistrate.