P. C. being Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.
25 9 75 of the Delhi High Court in original Misc.
P.C. is being challenged by the appellant before us in this appeal.
118 of 1975, challenging the said order of the Additional Sessions Judge on the ground that the Appellate Court had numberjurisdiction or power to pass the order after disposing of the appeal.
In the first place he companytended that an appeal was a companytinuation of the original trial by the Magistrate and the Court of Appeal would possess all the powers of the trying Magistrate and if the trying Magistrate companyld order restoration of the possession of the immovable property under proviso to sub s. 1 of s.456 Cr.
P.C. The respondents filed an appeal to the Court of Sessions against their companyviction which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi on January 6, 1975.
The respondents moved the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution read with s. 482 Cr.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
From the Judgment and order dt.
Jairam Singh and N. S. Das Behl for the respondent.
L. Kohli and S. K. Sabharwal for the appellant.
P.C. and the learned Additional Sessions Judge ordered its restoration to him on February 1, 1975.
The facts giving rise to the aforesaid question are briefly these Respondents 1 to 4 were companyvicted by a Metropolitan Magistrate under s. 447 I.P.C. for trespassing and taking forcible possession of the immovable property which was in the possession of the appellant Shri H. P. Gupta.
38 of 1976.
Main No.
Two weeks later the appellant made an application to the Appellate Court for restoration of possession of the property under s. 456 2 of Cr.
118 of 1975 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. The short question raised in this appeal by special leave is whether the Court of Appeal, after having disposed of the appeal, has the power to order restoration of possession of immovable property under s. 456 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ?
Counsel for the appellant raised a two fold companytention in support of the appeal.
P.C. within one month after the date of companyviction, the Appellate Court must be held to posses similar power and it was pointed out that in the instant case the Appellate Court had ordered restoration of possession of the property in question to the appellant within one month from the date when the respondents companyvictions were companyfirmed in appeal.
