LACHHMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question arising in this revision is whether this Court should make an order directing that the property which was the subject-matter of the charge should be directed to be handed back to the accused persons.

(2.) It is unnecessary to state elaborately the facts giving rise to this revision. Suffice it to say that Lachhman and Ram Dass were convicted by a learned Magistrate II Class Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur under section 447, I.P.O., and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 each. I am informed that the land in question was directed to be handed over to the complainant Gram Panchayat Mehri Kathl. This order was apparently made under section 522 (1) Cr. P.C.

(3.) On appeal, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the accused. As a result of this acquittal, it was ordered that fine if realised should be refunded to them according to law. Unfortunately, the lower Appellate Court omitted to make an order directing that the property be handed back to the accused persons from whom it was taken pursuant to the order of the trial Court. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge Acquitted the accused on 24th May, 1967.