SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners in the instant revision petition have impugned the order dated December 13, 2003 of Special Judge SC/ST (PA Cases) Alwar whereby the order under Section 456 Cr.P.C. came to be passed and the petitioners were directed to restore the possession of property in dispute to the complainant.
(2.) HAVING heard the submissions advanced before me, I find that the court below has not properly scanned the provisions contained in Section 456 Cr.P.C., which are thus :- "456. Power to restore possession of immovable property. - (1) When a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation, and it appears to the Court that by such force or show of force or intimidation, any person has been dispossessed of any immovable property, the Court may, if it thinks fit, order that possession of the same be restored to that person after evicting by force, if necessary, any other person who may be in possession of the property : Provided that no such older shall be made by the Court more than one month after the date of conviction. (2) Whether the Court trying the offence has not made an order under sub- section (1), the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision may, if it thinks fit, make such order while disposing of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be. (3) Where an order has been made under sub-section (1), the provisions of Section 454 shall apply in relation thereto as they apply in relation to an order under Section 453. (4) No order made under this Section shall prejudice any right or interest to or in such immovable property which any person may be able to establish in a civil suit." A look at the said provisions demonstrates that in view of the proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 456 Cr.P.C. it was mandatory for the court below to pass the order within one month from the date of judgment of conviction and sentence. Admittedly, the judgment of conviction and sentence was passed on May 27, 2003 and it is against the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 456 Cr.P.C. A perusal of the impugned order further goes to show that the learned Judge made attempt to stretch the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 456 Cr.P.C which are only applicable to the appeal and revision.
(3.) FOR these reasons, I allow the revision petition and set aside the impugned order dated December 13, 2003. But there shall be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.;