Raghubar Dayal, J. - (1.) Ram Prasad and others were convicted of offences under Sections 147, 447 and 352, I. 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, I. 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.;