HARIHAR SINGH Vs. NILKANTH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against the order of the learned Sessions Judge Setting aside the order of the trial Court, under Section 517 (4), Criminal P.C., by which he directed that the mare in question shall be restored to the complainant in the case.

(2.) It appears that there was a complaint filed against Nilkantha Singh and Saudagar Singh for an offence under Section 411, I. P. C. It is said that the complainant's mare was missing and ultimately she was recovered from the possession of Nilkanth Singh.

(3.) The case of Nilkanth Singh was that Saudagar Singh had sold the mare to him. The trial Court acquitted both the accused before it on the ground that the explanation given by Nilkanth Singh was satisfactory and it acquitted Saudagar Singh on the ground that there was no evidence against him whatsoever. There was no appeal preferred against the order of acquittal, but the learned Sessions Judge was moved against the order of the trial Court in so far as the order was under Section 517 (4), Criminal P.C., by which he restored the mare to the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge after hearing the parties set aside the order of the trial Court and directed that as the mare was recovered from the possession of Nilkanth Singh, she must be restored to him.