JUDGMENT

Moti Sagar, J. - This is an application for revision of an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Karnal under Section 520, Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The facts are briefly these:

3. One Rahim Bakhsh, a Lambardar, lost a large sum of money in currency notes in January 1920. In May, the police received information that the notes were in the possession of one That a, a Kumhar of Ramgarh. As a result of this information That a was prosecuted and convicted of criminal misappropriation.

4. During the investigation Thana informed the police that he had given notes for Rs. 500 to Kanshi Ram, the present petitioner, who was one of his creditors. Kanshi Ram is alleged to have admitted his guilt before the police and to have given up Rs. 400 in cash. Proceedings "were taken against him, and he was convicted by an Honorary Magistrate under Section 411, Indian Penal Code, of the offence of dishonestly receiving stolen property knowing the same to be stolen property. On appeal to the Sessions Judge the conviction was set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted No orders were passed by the trial Court or by the Sessions Judge with respect to Rs. 400 which had been recovered from him by the police in the course of the investigation and made over to the complainant by the order of the Magistrate on the conviction of Thana in June 1920.

5. In January 1922, about six months after his acquittal, Kanshi Ram made an application to the Sessions Judge for the restoration of this money. The Sessions Judge rejected the application on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

6. In my opinion the order of the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous and must be set aside. The application for the return of Rs. 400 made by the petitioner was in no sense an application by way of an appeal against the order of the trying Magistrate directing return of the money to the complainant but an independent application to the Sessions Judge himself with a view to his taking action under Sections 517, and 520, Criminal Procedure Code. No period of limitation is prescribed for such an application and it can in my opinion be made within a reasonable time from the date on which an accused person is acquitted of the crime with which he is charged It appears that the learned Sessions Judge has ever-looked the provisions of Section 520, Criminal Procedure Code, under which he is possessed of very wide powers to pass any orders that may be just. The words--and make any, further orders that maybe just in Section 520 are obviously intended to cover cases of this nature and to enable superior Courts to pass proper orders in cases where property has been erroneously disposed of under Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code.

7. I would reverse the order of the Sessions Judge and return the case with the direction that he should hear the application and decide the same according to law after giving notice to the complainant.