2019 INSC 0133
1
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1104 OF 2011
Mahesh Dube      ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Shivbodh and Ors.    ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Deepak Gupta, J.
1. Shankar   Prasad   Dube,   father   of   the   respondents   was   a
tenant of Prayag Prasad Dube, father of the appellant.  A suit for
eviction   on   account   of   non­payment   of   rent   was   filed   by   Prayag
Prasad Dube against Shankar Prasad.   The suit was decreed.   In
execution of the decree, possession of the house was delivered to
Prayag Prasad Dube on 26.11.1985, and he, put his own lock on
the   house.     On   the   night   intervening   on   26.11.1985   and
27.11.1985,   the   respondents   herein   along   with   their   father
Shankar   Prasad   Dube   and   grandmother   trespassed   into   the

2
house of Prayag Prasad Dube and forcibly took possession of the
house.     Thereafter,   Prayag   Prasad   Dube   lodged   a   report   against
the   respondents   and   their   father   and   grandmother   Gomti   Devi.
Charges   were   framed   against   the   accused.     Gomti   Devi   died
during the pendency of the trial and the respondents along  with
their   father   Shankar   Prasad   Dube   were   convicted   by   the   Trial
Court   under   Section   448   of   I.P.C.     The   Trial   Court   while
convicting the respondents and their father also directed that the
case propertybe handed over to the complainant.
2. Thereafter, the respondents and their father filed an appeal
before   the   Sessions   Judge   which   was   dismissed   on   18.11.1997.
After dismissal of the appeal, the father of the present appellant
filed   an   application   under   Section   456   Cr.P.C.   for   handing   over
the   possession   of   the   property   to   him.     The   Trial   Court   rejected
the application only on the ground that it had been filed beyond
the   period   of   30   days   from   the   date   of   order   of   the   Appellate
Court.     ARevision   Petition   was   filed,which   was   dismissed.     A
petition   under   Section   482   Cr.P.C.   was   filed   before   the   High
Court  and  the   same  was  also  dismissed on  19.09.2008.    Hence,
this appeal.  

3
3. Section 456 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
“ 456.   Power   to   restore   possession   of
immovable property. ­
(1) When   a   person   is   convicted   of   an   offence
attended   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
intimidation, any person has been dispossessed of
any   immovable   property,   the   Court   may,   if   it
thinks   fit,   order   that   possession   of   the   same   be
restored   to   that   person   after   evicting   by   force,   if
necessary,   any   other   person   who   may   be   in
possession of the property:
Provided   that   no   such   order   shall   be   made   by
the   Court   more   than   one   month   after   the   date   of
the conviction.
(2) Where the Court trying the offence has not
made an order under sub­section (1), the Court of
appeal,   confirmation   or   revision   may,   if   it   thinks
fit, make such order while disposing of the appeal,
reference or revision, as the case may be.
(3) Where an order has been made under sub­
section   (1),   the   provisions   of   section   454   shall
apply  in   relation   thereto   as  they   apply   in   relation
to an order under section 453.
(4) No   order   made   under   this   section   shall
prejudice   any   right   or   interest   to   or   in   such
immovable   property   which   any   person   may   be
able to establish in a civil suit.”
A   bare   reading   of   the   Sub­Section   1   of   Section   456   clearly
indicates that the Trial Court can pass an order for restoration of
the   possession   of   the   property   to   the   person   who   was   forcibly
dispossessed.  The proviso no doubt lays down that no such order
shall be passed after one month of the date of conviction.  

4
4. In   this   case,   the   Trial   Court   while   convicting   the   accused
had   passed   an   order   directing   restoration   of   the   property   to   the
complainant   Shankar   Prasad   Dube.     In   the   order,   it   has   been
stated   that   the   property   in   the   case   be   handed   over   to   the
petitioner Prayag  Prasad Dube.   Keeping  in view of the nature of
the   dispute,   there   is   no   other   case   property   except   the   property
whose possession was forcibly taken by the respondents and their
father.Therefore,   no   separate   order   was   required   directing
restoration   of   possession   since   such   an   order   had   been   passed
while convicting the respondents and their father.
5. It   seems   that   after   the   appeal   was   filed,   the   order   directing
restoration of the possession was not given effect to.  We may also
make   reference   to   Sub­Section   2   of   Section   456   Cr.P.C.   which
provides   that   if   the   Court   trying   the   offence   has   not   made   such
an   order,   the   Court   of   appeal,   confirmation   or   revision   can   also
make   such   an   order   while   disposing   of   the   proceedings   pending
before it.  No limitation has been provided for the higher courts to
make   such   order.     In   this   behalf,   reference   may   be   made   to   the

5
judgment   of   this   Court   in   H.   P.   Gupta   v.   Manohar   Lal   AIR
1979 S.C. 443.
6. In the present case, after the appeal filed by the respondents
and   their   father   was   dismissed,   the   father   of   the   present
appellant applied for handing over possession to him in terms of
the   order   already   passed   by   the   Trial   Court   while   convicting   the
respondents   and   their   father,   in   which   eventually,   the   limitation
of 30 days would not apply.  It would apply only if the Trial Court
had   not   passed   any   order   in   respect   of   the   case   property   while
convicting the accused.  
7. In   view   of   the   above   discussion,   the   present   appeal   is
allowed.     The   order   of   the   High   Court   in   Miscellaneous   Criminal
Case   No.7799   of   1998   dated   19.09.2008,   the   order   of   the
Sessions   Court   in   Criminal   Revision   No.234   of   1998   dated
02.09.1998, the order of the Trial Court in M. J. C. No.1 of 1998
dated 01.05.1998 are set aside and the respondents are directed
to   handover   the   possession  of   the   property,   which   is  the   subject
matter   of   the   case   and   from   which   the   appellant   and   his   father
were  forcibly  dispossessed,  to   the   appellant   within   one  month   of

6
the service by a certified copy of this order upon the respondents.
The appeal is allowed accordingly in the aforesaid terms. Pending
application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
………………………..J.
(Sanjay Kishan Kaul)
…………………………J.
(Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi
February 12, 2019