Aziz Ahmad vs Buddhu Kahan and others

Daniels, J.—This is an application in revision asking this Court to make, u/s 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an order for the restoration of property, which the trial court has refused to make. The discretion to pass or not to pass such an order is very clearly vested in the trial court by the section, which says that the court may pass such an order if it thinks fit. I know of no case in which a court of appeal or revision has compelled a court to pass such an order in a case in which, in the exercise of its discretion, it has declined to do so. Indeed there is the authority of two High Courts, those of Calcutta and the Punjab, for the view that a court of appeal or revision has no power to do so. This was held by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Bhagabat Shaha v. Sadique Ostagar (1912) 39 Cal. 1050=16 C.W.N, 811 = 13 Cr. L.J. 608 = 16 I.C. 176, and by the Punjab High Court in Muhammad Din v. The Crown (1919) 14 P.R. 1919 Cr. = 33 P.L.R. 1919 = 20 Cr. L.J. 30= 1 P.W.R. 1919 Cr. = 48 I.C. 510. Even if this Court in revision has power to pass the order applied for, there are no such exceptional circumstances in this case as would justify such action. I dismiss the application.