JUDGMENT 1. We think the learned Sessions Judge is right in the reference which he has made to this Court. The elephant, it is true, was found to belong to Baloram Gogai but the persons whom he charged with having committed an offence in respect of it were acquitted of that offence. They claimed the elephant and denied Baloram's ownership. 2. The learned pleader who appears on behalf of Baloram argues that no appeal lay to the Sessions Judge and he draws our attention to the case of Surendra Nath Sarma v. Rai Mohan Das 7 C. W. N. 634 (1903). 3. It appears to as that the attention of the learned Judges who decided that case was not called to the alterations made in the wording of sec. 517 of the present Code and also in the addition of an entirely new sec. 520, and they based their judgment on a ruling decided under the old law. We, however, do not feel ourselves constrained by that ruling as the matter is before us on a reference made by the Sessions Judge regarding the order passed by the Magistrate, and it is immaterial whether an appeal lay to the Judge or not. 4. We, therefore, direct that in lien of the order passed by the Magistrate that the elephant should be delivered to Baloram, an order should be substituted that the elephant be delivered to Chintaram in whose possession it was found at the time the criminal proceedings were instituted. The rule obtained on behalf of Baloram is discharged.