The Sessions Judge has the jurisdiction to hear revision petitions under Section 520 of the CrPC, even in cases where there is no appeal against the acquittal of the accused.

Imam, J.

1. This is an application in revision against the order of the learned Sessions Judge Setting aside the order of the trial Court, under Sec. 517 (4), Criminal P.C., by which he directed that the mare in question shall be restored to the complainant in the case.

2. It appears that there was a complaint filed against Nilkantha Singh and Saudagar Singh for an offence under Sec. 411, I. P. C. It is said that the complainants mare was missing and ultimately she was recovered from the possession of Nilkanth Singh.

3. The case of Nilkanth Singh was that Saudagar Singh had sold the mare to him. The trial Court acquitted both the accused before it on the ground that the explanation given by Nilkanth Singh was satisfactory and it acquitted Saudagar Singh on the ground that there was no evidence against him whatsoever. There was no appeal preferred against the order of acquittal, but the learned Sessions Judge was moved against the order of the trial Court in so far as the order was under Sec. 517 (4), Criminal P.C., by which he restored the mare to the complainant.

The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties set aside the order of the trial Court and directed that as the mare was recovered from the possession of Nilkanth Singh, she must be restored to him.

4. Mr. Nageshwar Prasad appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Sessions Judge was not empowered under Sec. 520 to hear the matter in appeal. In fact, no appeal lay before the learned Sessions Judge and his entire order was without jurisdiction and must be set aside. In order to determine this question of law it is necessary to consider Sec. 520. This section is as follows :

"Any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision may direct any order under Sec. 517, Sec. 513 or Sec. 519, passed by a Court subordinate thereto, to be stayed pending consideration by the former Court, and may modify, alter or annul such order and make any further orders that may be just."

Mr. Nageshwar Prasad submitted that the words "Court of appeal" really refer to that Court which would hear the appeal from the order of the trial court concerning conviction or acquittal, and as there was no appeal against acquittal before the learned Sessions Judge, as there could not be under the law, the learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to interfere. In my opinion, the word "any" before the words "Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision" is important. There can be no doubt that there are conflicting decisions on this point. Some Courts have held that the words "Court of appeal" refer to that court which has the right to hear the appeal as against the order of conviction or acquittal.

This view has been held in the cases of Ibrahim Rahmatullah V/s. Emperor, AIR 1947 Nag 33 (A); Srinivasa Moorthi V/s. Narasimhalu Naidu, ILR 50 Mad 916: (AIR 1927 Mad 797) (B); Kanshi Ram V/s. Emperor, AIR 1924 Lah 75 (C). All these decisions are Single Judge decisions. As against them there are two Pull Bench decisions, one of the Rangoon High Court and the other of the Bombay High Court, and one Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court. All of them have held that the words "Court of appeal" are not limited to a court before which appeal from order of acquittal can lie but to any court of appeal. The Calcutta decision is reported in Banur-ud-din Biswas V/s. Gani Mia Sawdagar, AIR 1936 Cal 21 (D), and it was observed there that "the words Court of appeal as used in Sec. 520 of Criminal P.C., are not limited to a Court in which appeal from an order of acquittal whereby also order under Sec. 517 is passed could lie. The jurisdiction of the Court of appeal to deal with an order under Sec. 517, Criminal P.C., for disposal of property found to be in the possession of accused charged under Sec. 411, of Penal Code is not dependent upon the question in what Court an appeal from an order of acquittal might have been brought, and which in point of fact has not been