A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order date 17. 8. 1988 passed by the learned Session Judge, Sirohi, whereby he set aside the conviction of the accused Ganeshmal under Section 406. However, while acquitting the accused Ganeshmal, the learned Sessions Judge has ordered return of the ingot gold back to accused Ganeshmal from whose possession it was recovered. However, the learned trial court delivered this ingot to petitioner Tarachand.
(2.) MR. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the order has been passed against him without effording him any opportunity of being hearing when specially the trial court has directed to deliver this ingot gold to him. Therefore, he should have been heard by the learned Sessions Judge before passing the order of delivery of the gold. The contention of Joshi appears to be well founded. When the trial court has directed to return this ingot gold to Targchand then normally while reversing the order the learned Sessions Judge should have heard Tarachand complainant also. In the result I allow this revision petition in part and direct the learned Sessions Judge to hear the complainant Tarachand regarding delivery of ingot gold. The accused should also be heard in the matter. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi on 1. 5. 1989. .;