JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. Musammat Bhagwanti laid a complaint against Musammat Manki and another, of offences under sections 352 and 448 of the Penal Code, 1860. Musammat Manki and Barku were found guilty of house-trespass and sentenced to imprisonment. Musammat Bhagwanti then applied to the Criminal Court which had convicted Musammat Manki and obtained an order in her favour under section 522 of the Code awarding to her possession over the house, the subject-matter of the offence, under section 448 of the Penal Code, 1860. In the meanwhile, Musammat Manki had appealed from the conviction and sentence with the result that she was acquitted and no offence either of using force or of committing house-trespass was held to have been proved against her. 2. There remained, however, against her the order under section 522. The law gives no appeal against such an order, and the District Magistrate has asked this Court to interfere in revision. Upon the case being called on a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of Musammat Bhagwanti that this Court had no power to interfere and reliance was placed upon the case of Ram Chandra Mistry v. Nobin Mirdho,[1898] I.L.R., 25 Cal., 630. The case was decided before Act No. V of 1898 came into force. Among the powers conferred on this Court as a Court of Revision are all the powers set out in section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By Act No. V of 1898 one additional power to those which already existed was added, namely, the power of making any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper, These powers are very wide, and in our opinion authorise this Court to interfere in a case like the present. As regards the merits of the case nothing has been put forward by Musammat Bhagwanti. We set aside the order passed on the 1st June, 1904, and we direct that Musammat Manki be restored to the possession of the immovable property in dispute.