SHER SINGH Vs. CHIRANJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was charged for having committed theft in the house of the petitioner on 1 -9 -1950 and to have stolen certain articles which included currency notes worth Rs. 600/ -. The report of the incident was lodged in Police Station, Behru nine days after the incident. The police during investigation recovered four currency notes of Rs. 100/ - each from the accused and also two currency notes of the same denomination from one Atma Singh at his instance. The trial Magistrate did not believe the evidence examined by the prosecution with respect to recovery of stolen property from the accused or at his instance, and acquitted him of the charge. He, however, directed that the cash recovered from, or at the instance of, the accused be delivered to the complainant. The accused approached the Sessions Judge with a petition for revising the direction given by the trial Magistrate as regards the disposal of the currency notes. The learned Sessions Judge acting under S. 520, Criminal P.C., set aside the order and directed that the currency notes in question should be delivered to the accused. The present is a petition of the complainant against this order of the Sessions Judge.

(2.) IT is contended by S. Ujagar Singh that the learned Sessions Judge on a petition for revision could have only referred the case to this Court under S. 438, Criminal P.C., for an order under S. 439 of the Code. His argument is that the revision could not be treated as an appeal and no order under S. 520, could be made by him. I, however, do not see any substance in this contention. Section 520, clearly gives all Courts of appeal, confirmation, reference and revision powers to modify alter, or annul any order made by the trial Court under Ss. 517, 518 or 519 of the Code. The words, 'Court of appeal' under S. 520 mean the Court to which an appeal would ordinarily lie from the order of the trial Court. In this case Magistrate 1st Class, Patiala, was subordinate to the Sessions Judge, Patiala, the latter Court which had powers of appeal, confirmation, reference, or revision in respect of the orders of the Magistrate could make any substantive order, if thought fit, in respect of the property dealt with by the former under S. 517. It did not make any difference whether the accused had approached the Sessions Judge by way of revision, or an application or appeal. The Sessions Judge was within his powers to treat the revision as an appeal. The contention of the learned counsel is, therefore, repelled.