This is an application in revision against that part of the order of Sessions Judge, Jammu, by which he has directed the ornaments to be restored to Mst. Bimla Devi. The application arises in the following circumstances:

(2) A criminal case of theft was instituted against Saukun and Charan Das and the two accused were ultimately convicted by a Magistrate of Ramnagar. The learned Magistrate after convicting the accused directed that the ornaments recovered should be handed over to the complainant, the petitioner in this case. The accused then appealed to the Sessions Judge against their conviction and the appeal was allowed and the accused were acquitted. The learned Judge came to a clear finding that the case was false and that the complainant had not proved that the ornaments were stolen properties and as a consequential order the learned Judge directed that the ornaments should be returned to Mst. Bimla Devi from whom they were seized.

(3) In support of this petition Mr. Sharma contended that the order of restoration of the propertes _ to Bimla Devi was passed without giving a notice to the complainant who is undoubtedly aggrieved by this order. He has further submitted that there was no application on behalf of Bimla Devi which would have enabled the Court to pass an order of the restoration of the property to her.

(4) A perusal of section 520 as also section 423 1) (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly shows that a notice to the complainant in these matters is not essential. In fact the order of restoration of property could be passed by the appellate Court as a consequential order to the order of acquittal which he had passed in this case. The learned Judge had come to a clear finding that the ornaments were not stolen property and did not belong to the complainant. He has further found in very clear terms that the ornaments were produced by or seized from Bimla Devi and they belonged to her.

Mr. Sharma submitted that he was entitled to canvass propriety of these findings if he was given notice by the learned Judge on the question of restoration of the property. I am, however, unable to agree with this contention. The order of acquittal could not be challenged on merits before the Court which had passed it. The only remedy which the petitioner could have availed of was the filing of a revision to this Court against an order of acquittal or to move the State for filing an appeal against the order of acquittal. The complainant does not seem to have pursued any of these courses. Mr. Sharma relied on a single Bench decision of the Madras High Court reported on Arunraychala Thevan v. Vellachami Thevan, AIR 1923 Mad 324 where his Lordship in a similar matter observed as follows:- "Ordinarily in such cases it is desirable that notice should be given, especially if the order is not passed on the day the appeal is disposed of; but there is no rule of law that requires that such1 notice is absolutely necessary. However, as in this particular case, it is not unlikely that the absence of notice of the hearing of the petition by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has led to the passing of a wrong order for, it is not very clear from the records whether the bulls really belong to the petitioner or to the accused - I think it better that this case should be sent down to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, requesting him to give a reasonable opportunity to the complainant to place his contention before him, and then to pass final orders as regards the disposal of the bulls." It seems to me, however, that the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the Madras case. In the first place, in the present case the order of restoration has been passed as a consequential order along with the order of acquittal in the appeal1. Secondly, there is a clear finding in this case that the ornaments belonged to Bimla Devi and did not belong to the complainant at all. In the Madras case, however, it

Click Here to Read the rest of this document