# H.P. GUPTA v. MANOHAR LAL A.ND ORS - **Citation:** [1979] 2 S.C.R. 208 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1978-11-03 - **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1976 - **Bench:** V. D. Tulzapurkar, R. S. Pathak - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/h-p-gupta-v-manohar-lal-a-nd-ors-7503 - **Pages:** 7 ## Headnote Criminal Procedure Code, (Act II of 1974), 1973 Scope of Sec. 456(2)- Whether the Court of appeal. after having disposed of the appeal has the power lo order restoration of possession of itnmovable property ?.-Construction of the words "while disposing of the appeal, reference or revisionu in S. 456 of tlze Code. Respondents 1 to 4 were convicted by a Metropolitan Magistrate under S. 447 I.P.C. for trespassing and taking forcible possession of the immovable property, which was in possession of the appellant. The said conviction was confirmed by the Court of Sessions. As the Magistrate did not pass any order for restoration of possession under s. 456 (1) Crl. P.C., the appellant made an application two weeks after the confirmation of the conviction to the Appelw late Court for restoration of possession of the property under s. 456 (2) Crl. P.C. which was ordered. But the Dellhi High Court while allO\ving the application under Art. 227 of the Constitution r/w s. 182 Cr!. P.C. made by the respondents 1 to 4 set aside the order of restoration of possession holding that "the language of sub-"ssions against their conviction which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi H on January 6, 1975. Two weeks later the appellant made an application to the. Appellate Court for restoration of possession of the property A 210 SUPREME COURT REl'OR TS [ ! 979] 2 S.C.R. under s. 456 (2) of Cr. P.C. and the karned Additional Sessions Judge· ordered its restoration to him on February 1, 1975. The respondents moved the Delhi High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution read with s. 482 Cr. P. C. beillg Crirniiial Miscellaneous Petitiuu N.o. 118 of 1975, challenging the said order of the Additional Sessions Judge on the B ground that the Appellate Court had no jurisdicticm or poww to pass the order after disposing of the appeal. The High Court set aside the impugned order holding that "thee language of sul>-s.(2) of s.456 Cr. P.C. is plain and unambiguous and leaves no doubt that the Court of appeal, confirmation, or revision has no power to pass any order of restoration after the appeal, reference or revision has been disposed of." C The construction placed by the High Court on the words "while disposing of the appeal, reference or revision" occurring in s.456(2) Cr. P.C. is being challenged by the app::llant before us in this appeal. D E F Counsel for the appdlant raised a two-fold contention in support of the appeal. In the first place he contended that an appeal was a continuation 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 could order restoration of the poosession of the immovable property under proviso to sub-s. (1) of s.456 Cr. P.C. within one month after the date of conviction, the Appellate Court must be held to posses similar power and it was pointed outt,hat in the instant case the Appellate Court had ordered restoration of possession of t11e property in question to the appellant within one month from the date when the· respondents' convictions wer•:: confirmed in appeal. Secondly, he contended that unlike the trial Court where a limitation of 30 days has been prescribed under proviso to sub-s. ( 1), no period of limitation is prescribed so far as tho~ powers of Appellate Court under sub-s. (2) of s.456 Cr. P.C. are concerned, which means that the Appellate Court can pass an order for restoration of possession at any time, though within reasonable time of recording or confirming the conviction after having been satisfied that the offence was attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation. In any event, he contended that the phrase "while disposing of the appeal, reference or revision" occurG ring in sul>-s. (2) of s.456 Cr. P.C. cann•>t be interpre~~d to mean that the order of restoration of possession must form part of the judgment disposing of the appeal, reference or revision as that was not the intention of the Legislature when it changed the phraseo1ogy of the equivaknt provision of the old Code of 1898. On the other hand, counseT for the respondents laid considerable stress on the words "while disposH ing of the appeal, refer::nce or revision" occurring in sub-s. (2) of s.456 Cr. P.C. and contended that these words imported a limitation on the power of the Appellate or Revisional Court to pass the order for I ' ,, •, H.P. GUPTA v. MANOHAR LAL (Tulzapurkar, !.) 211 restoration of possession at the time of the disposal of the appeal, reference or revision and such Court could not do so after the disposal of the appeal, reference or revision. In order to determine the question raised before us it will be n::cessary to consider the equivalent provision of the old Code of 1898 which Al was contained in s. 522 thereof. Section 522 ran tlms : B: "522. Power to restore possession of immovable property.-(\) Whenever a person is convicn::d of an offence atr:mded by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and it appears to the Court that by such force or show of force or criminal intimidation any person has been dispossessed of any immovable property, the Court, may, if it thinks fit when convicting such person or at any time within one month from the da:·o of the conviction order the person dispossessed to be restored to the poss•::ssion of the same. (2) No such order shall prejudice any right or interest to or in such immovable proP'::rty which any pernon may be able, to establish in a civil suit. (3) An ardor under this section may be made by any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision." c It will appear clear that under sulrs. ( 1) of aforesaid provision the E trial Court could order restoration of possession "when convicting such person or at any time within one month from the date of the conviction" whereas under the new s. 456 the limitation of one mor,th has been relegated to a provi»o to sub-s. (1) of s.456. Sulrs. (2) of the present s.456 corresponds to old s.522 (3), but there has been a change in th«~ phraseology and the reasons for such change have been explained F · by the Law Commission in its 41st Report in para 43.24 thus : "43.24. Sub-section (3) of section 522 provides that an order nnder sub-section ( 1) may be made by any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision. This is to meet ca~es where the trial Court has failed to make an order under G. sub-section (I) and it apP'oars to tho Court of appeal or revision that such an order ought to be made. in the interests of justice. There is a conflict of decisions as to whether the period of one month from th" dato of the conviction which is mentioned in sub-section (I) also applies to the Court of appeal or revision. This conflict should be set at rest by a H slight re-wording of sub-section (3) indicating that the Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision may make an A B c D E F G 212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1979] 2 s.c.R. order while disposing of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be." It will thns appear clear that with a view to r;:solv,_, the conflict of views between various High Courts that obtained under the old Code on the question whether the limitation of 30 days was applicable to the Court of appeal, reference by revision the phraseology was altered while enacting the new provision. The Calcutta High Court Abdul Mannan and Ors. v. Taiyab Ali(1) and the Kerala High Court Krishnan Moothan v. V. K. A. Krishnakutty Moothan (") had taken the view that the Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision acting under s. 522(3) must pass the order of restoration of possession when upholding the conviction or at any time within one month from the date of the order in appeal, reference or revision upholding th.; order of conviction. This was contrary to the view taken by the Allahabad High Court in Nihal Singh v. Emperor(') where it was held that tll'.;re was no limitation of one month from the date of conviction for passing the order under sub-s. (3) of s. 522 as there was for an order under sub-s. ( 1) and, therefor>.;, where an order for restoration of possession of the immovable property was passed by the Magistrate more than one month after the conviction under s. 447 I.P.C'., the High Court in revision could set aside that order and itself pass an order for the restoration of possession. In a later case Basanta Kumar Maity v. Kenaram Maity(') the Calcutta High Court took the view that the Sessions Judge as a Court of Reference has power to pass an order under s. 522 even after one month of conviction and there was nothing to prevent his validating the order of the Magistrate (passed beyond one month of the conviction) which was a just order and the Sessions Judge not having done so, the High Court, as a Court of revision, had power under s. 522 to make much an order. In Fida Hussain v. Sarfaraz Hussain(•) the Patna High Court took view that there was nothing in s. 522(3) to limit the jurisdiction of an appellate Court to the passing of an oa:der within one month either of the original conviction or the appellate order and that it was left to the discretion of the appellate or revisional Court, not to exercise its power under this section in cases where there has been undue or excessive delay in moving the Court for its use : in other words the appellate or revisional Court will use its discretion in exercising power within reasonable time. In Sav/aram Sadoba Navle v. (1) A.l.R. 1947 Cal 390. (2) A.l.R. 1960 Ker. 348. H (3) A.I.R. 1939 All. 662. (4) A.I.R. 1953 Cal. 393. (5) A.I.R. 1933 Patna 617. I • I •• .. • -- ) ... II. p. GUPTA v. MANOHAR LAL (Tulzapitrkar, !.) 213 Dhyaneshwar Vishnu Chinke(I) the Bombay High Court took the view that although there be not before the Court any appeal or revision against the conviction of the accused, and the Magistrate had rightly dismissed th;: application for an order for possession under s. 522(1) b.:cause it was made mme than a month after the conviction, still the High Ceurt can under sub-s. (3) of s. 522 make an order for poosession in a proper case in revision against the order dismissing the application for possession and in taking this view the Bombay High Caurt followed the view of the Patna High Court in ILR 12 Patna 787 and ILR 4 Patna 438 and of the Allahabad High Court in AIR 1939 All. 662. It was with a view to set at rest the aforesaid conflict of views that the Law Commission recommended the change in the phraseology and the Parliament accepting the recomm·;:ndation enacted sub-s. (2) of s. 456 thus: "456(2) Where the Court trying the offence has not made an order under sub-section ( 1), the Court of appeal, confirmation or revision may, if it thinks fit, make such order while disposing of the appeal, refep;:nce or revision, as the case may be." The language rnf sub-s. (2) clearly shows that the same is applicable to a case where a conviction has been r;:corded by the trial Court and A B c D the trial Court has through mistake or inadvertence omitted to make an order for restoration of possession of immovable property to th;: comE plainant or has refused to pass such order either because the offence was not attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation or because the application in that behalf was made after expiry of 30 days and an appeal or revision either against the conviction or the order refusing restoration has been preferred; in such a case sub-s. (2) provides that the appellate Court or the revisional Court F while disposing of such appeal or revision may make an order restoring possession of the immovable property to the complainant. The change in phraseology clearly suggests that Parliament did not intend to prescribe any limitation on the powers of the apP'zllate Court or revisional Court : the words are not "wh;:n convicting" or "when upholding the conviction" but the words are "while disposing of the appeal, reference or revision" and these would mean in continuation of the disposal of the appeal, reference or revision and these words cannot be regarded as importing a limitation on the power to the effect that such order must be in:orporated in the body of the judgment disposing of the app;:al, refereno;: or revision. In other words, the appellate or revisional Court acting under s. 456(2) will have jurisdiction or pmver to pass (i) A.I.R. 1942 Born. 148. G H 214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1979] 2 s.c.R. .A the order for restoration of possession at any time but it has to be exercised with discretioo within reasonable time of th1:i disposal of the appeal, reference or revision. In our opinion the view taken by the High Court is clearly erroneous. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order B passed by the High Court on September 25, 1975 and restore. that passed by the Additional Sessions Judge on February 1, 1975. S.R. Appeal allowed. • • / '