RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) RAM Prasad and others were convicted of offences under Sections 147, 447 and 352,. P. C. Subsequent to their conviction, the Magistrate convicting them passed an order under Section 522, Code of Criminal Procedure, ordering them to restore possession to the complainant Ram gopal. Possession was actually delivered to the complainant. On appeal, Ram Prasad and others were acquitted by the Assistant Sessions Judge on 19th of September, 1955. The Court observed :

"in view of what I have observed above it cannot be said that the prosecution has satisfactorily established the possession of Ram Gopal on the plots in suit immediately before the occurrence. No case Under Sections 147, 447 and 352,. P. C. has thus been established. The real dispute between the parties seems to be about their rights in the land but they should be solved through proper Court by proper proceedings. "

( 2 ) ON 20th of September, 1955, Ram Prasad and others, the acquitted persons, applied to the assistant Sessions Judge for the restitution of possession over the land in dispute under Section 522, Code of Criminal Procedure. This application was rejected on 17th of October, 1955. It was held that the appellate Court could not pass an order under Section 522, Code of Criminal procedure, when it acquitted the accused-appellants. It was further held that though the appellate Court could pass an order of restitution of possession to the accused against whom an order under Section 522, Code of Criminal Procedure had been passed by the trial Court, yet such an order under Section 423 (1) (d), Code of Criminal procedure could be passed only when the appellate Court was seized of the appeal and not subsequent to its disposal.

( 3 ) RAM Prasad and others have filed this revision against the order of the learned Assistant sessions Judge dated 17th of October, 1955. At the time of hearing of this revision, I was inclined to the view that a reference to a larger Bench would be necessary in view of some previous decisions of this Court with which I was not in full agreement and which views have been expressed practically without any discussion of the points. I have now reconsidered the whole matter and am of opinion that no such reference is necessary for purposes of disposing of this revision.

( 4 ) NO exception can be taken to the views expressed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge on both the points. Section 522, Code, of Criminal Procedure is:

"522 (1 ). Whenever a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and it appears to the Court that by such force or show of force or criminal intimidation any person has been dispossessed of any immovable property, the Court may, if it thinks fit, when convicting such person or at any time within one month from the date of the conviction order the person dispossessed to be restored to the possession of the same. (2) No such order shall prejudice any right or interest to or in such immovable property which any person may be able to establish in civil suit. (3 ). An order under this section may be made by any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision. "

Sub-section (1) of Section 522, Code of Criminal Procedure authorises the Court convicting a person of certain type of offences committed in certain circumstances, to order the person dispossessed to be restored to the possession of the property. This power can be exercised by any court of appeal, confirmation, refer-Jence or revision also in view of Sub-section (3 ). Such Courts can, therefore, also pass an order under Section 522, Code of Criminal Proce dure in the circumstances set out in Sub-section (1), that is, when a person is convicted by them or his conviction is upheld by them for specific types of offences. There is nothing in this section which empowers the appellate. Court to pass an order for re-delivery of possession to tho person acquitted on appeal. In fact, such an o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document