- (1.) THIS is an application in revision by the complainant against the order of the Sessions Judge, Bikaner, dated 6th August, 1954.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that one accused Devilal was challaned by the police under secs. 454, 380 and 109 I. P. C. THE City Magistrate Bikaner acquitted the accused but ordered the property recovered by the police to be given to the complainant. Against this order dated 19th December 1953, the accused approached the Sessions Judge, Bikaner. THE learned Sessions Judge ordered that the ornaments and clothes produced by the police should be returned to the persons from whose possession they were taken under custody by the police. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged in the first instance that the learned Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction in this case to pass the order which he has done since no appeal against the order of acquittal lay to that court In support of his argument he has referred to the case of Khima Rukhad In re (l ). In that case it was held that 'the Court of appeal within the meaning of sec. 520 Cr. P. C. is the court to which appeal lies in the particular case and not the court to which appeals would ordinarily lie from the court deciding that particular case. " It may be pointed oat that the said case has been over-ruled by a Full Bench of the same High Court in the case of Walchand Jasraj Marwadi vs. Hari Anant Joshi (2 ). In that case it was held that "sec. 520 means that any Court, which has powers of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision in respect of the trial court, that being the Court subordinate thereto referred to in the section, can make any substantive order it thinks fit in respect of property dealt with by the trial Court under Secs. 517, 518 or 519. " In this case also the accused was acquitted of the charge, and therefore an appeal ordinarily lay only to the High Court, but it was held by the learned Judges in the Full Bench that the Sessions Judge himself could make a proper order tinder sec. 520 and no reference to the High Court was necessary. In the case of Badur-ud-din vs. Gani Mia (3) it was also held that "the words 'court of appeal' as used in sec. 520 Cr. P. C. are not limited to a court in which appeal from an order of acquittal whereby also order under sec. 517 is passed, could lie. " The view expressed in Walchand Jasraj Marwadi vs. Hari Anant Joshi (2) was followed in this case. The Allahabad High Court has also followed the same view in the case of Ram Dihal vs. Badri (4) In that case a First Class Magistrate had passed an order of acquittal and also an order under sec. 517 Cr. P. C. for the disposal of the property. It was held that an appeal from the order of the First Class Magistrate under sec. 517 Cr. P. C. did lie to the Sessions Judge. There is thus a preponderance of authority in favour of the view that an appeal from an order of a Magistrate under sec. 517 Cr. P. C. regarding the disposal of the property does lie to the court of a Sessions Judge under sec. 520 even though the accused has been acquitted in the main case. The learned Sessions Judge was, therefore, quite competent to hear the appeal which was filed to his court. Learned counsel for the applicant has urged that the contention raised by him finds support from the case of Inas Rodrigues vs. Santhan Souza (5 ). This contention is also incorrect. In that case the appeal was filed before the Additional District Magistrate instead of the District Magistrate himself. All that was held was that the Additional District Magistrate was not straight away and by reason of his appointment as Additional District Magistrate, vested with all or any of the powers of the District Magistrate under the Code. There is thus no authority in favour of the view advanced by learned counsel for the appelicant and therefore his contention is dismissed. It is ordinary rule of law that if an accused is acquitted of the offence and the property produced by the police in that case is not found to be the subject of offence, it should be resumed to the person from whom it is recovered. The learned Sessions Judge has only followed this rule and therefore no exception can be taken to it. There is no force in this revision application and it is, therefour, dismissed..;