JUDGMENT
Das, J.
1. The learned District Magistrate in the Court below has set aside an order under Section 522 of the Criminal Procedure Code, He was of opinion that no order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, could be made against Musammat Kaddo who was acquitted and there was no point in making the order against the person who was convicted under Section 448, Indian Penal Code.
2. It may be pointed out that so far as Musammat kaddo is concerned, the Bench of the Honorary Magistrates who tried the case, to adopt the words used by them, showed her mercy, but the point is not whether an order under Section 522 should be made against Musammat Kaddo, but whether such order should be made in favour of the party dispossessed. The Court has found as a fact that the complainant was in possession of the whole house and that neither Musammat Kaddo nor her stepson, who has been convicted under Section 448, Indian Penal Code, was in possession of the house. Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, runs as follows:–“Whenever a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force,” and this is a case where it has been found that a person has been convicted of an offence attended by criminal force, and it appears to the Court that by such force any person has been dispossessed of any immoveable property,” and this was found by the Court of first instance, a finding from which the learned District Magistrate did not dissent, “the Court may, if it thinks fit, order such person to be restored to the possession of the same.” In my view every circumstance necessary to give jurisdiction to a Criminal Court to make an order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure Code, was present in this ease. A person was convicted of an offence attended by criminal force. It did appear to the Court that by such force the petitioner was dispossessed of immoveable properly. The Court of first instance, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, ordered such person to be restored to the possession of the immoveable property.
3. I do not read the judgment of the learned District Magistrate as dissenting from any of the findings of fast of the Court of first instance. The learned District Magistrate has set aside the order under Section 522, criminal Procedure Code, on the ground that it could not be passed against Musammat Kaddo. All that I need point out to the learned Magistrate is that an order under Section 522 is not passed against any person, but is passed in favour of the party dispossessed, provided the conditions necessary to give the Court jurisdiction to make that order are present. It is not suggested by the learned Magistrate that the conditions necessary to give the Court jurisdiction to make an order under Section 522, criminal Procedure code, are not in this case present. That being so, the learned Magistrate ought not to have set aside the order under Section 522, criminal Procedure code.
4. I would set aside the order passed by the learned District Magistrate and restore the order under Section 522, Criminal Procedure code, passed by the Court of first instance.