Burn, J.

1. These cases are precisely similar. The Sub-Magistrate found that the Petitioner (the accused in both cases) was not guilty of the offence of theft or of dishonestly receiving stolen property (Section 379 or 411, Indian Penal Code). He found in fact that the Petitioner had purchased both the bulls for fair prices and without any reason to suppose them to be stolen property. Nevertheless he ordered the bulls to be returned to Meenammal and Pandia Muppan whom after enquiring he considered to be the owners. He was satisfied, he says, that the bulls had been stolen though he does not say whence, by whom or when.

2. The general rule in such cases is that where a person accused of theft is acquitted and claims as his own the property seized from him by the Police and alleged to have been stolen, it should be restored to him in the absence of special reasons to the contrary. This is the principle generally recognised in this Court (vide Vaiyapuri Chetty v. Sinniah Chetty AIR1931Mad17 ). In the present case the learned Sub-Magistrate has not given any reason for departing from this principle. He appears to have thought that the decision of the question of ownership was suffic