G.L. Chopra, J. - (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. On merits S. Ujagar Singh has not been able to point out anything against the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. The evidence relating to recovery of the stolen property from or at the instance of the accused, was not believed by the trial Judge, and he nowhere in his judgment found that the currency notes were the subject -matter of the theft. This was because there was absolutely no evidence that the notes produced by the accused or recovered from Atma Singh, were those which had been stolen from the complainant. He had kept no record of the numbers of the currency notes of which he had been deprived. According to him he had lost six notes of Rs. 100/ - each, but as against this his wife gave a different denomination and the number of the currency notes of which he had been deprived. The accused, on the other hand, claimed these notes to be his and urged that he produced them to the police as a result of their pressure by incurring a loan from one Jawala of Patiala. A bond dated 12 -9 -1950, evidencing this loan, was also produced and got proved by him. In view of all these facts I have no hesitation to agree with the learned Sessions Judge that the notes produced by the accused or recovered from Atma Singh were not proved to be the subject -matter of the theft in question, and that they must be returned to the accused. In the result this petition is dismissed.;