JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J. 1 This is an application for revision of an order of the learned Sessions Judge of Cawnpore passed under the provisions of section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The following are the facts of the case:— Abdul Razzak and Abdul Haq, were dealers in skins and hides carrying on business in Cawnpore. On the 2nd December, 1903, Abdul Haq gave to Abdul Razzak, the right halves of two currency notes for Rs. 100. On the following day Abdul Haq gave Abdul Razzak the right half of another currency note for Rs. 100. He promised him the remaining halves of the notes in a day or two, On the faith of this promise, Abdul Razzak allowed Abdul Haq to take away skins worth Rs. 644. Abdul Haq did not give Abdul Razzak the remaining halves. On being asked for them, he told Razzak that the had lost them, and was in communication with the Calcutta Currency Office about the loss. After a long delay Abdul Razzak discovered that Abdul Haq's story of having lost the half notes and applied to the Currency Office was false the half notes having been given by Abdul Haq to another dealer in hides, named Rahmat-ul-lah. Abdul Razzak then prosecuted Abdul Haq in the criminal court, with the result that Abdul Haq was convicted on the 24th November, 1904, of cheating and sentenced to imprisonment and fine under section 420, Penal Code, 1860. When giving evidence at the trial, Abdul Razzak produced the half notes which he had received from the accused. Rahmat-ul-lah was also a witness against the accused, and proved that he had received from the accused on the 2nd December, 1903, the corresponding halves of the currency notes. It is found that Rahmat-ul-lah received the left halves before the right halves were made over to Abdul Razzak. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate acting under the provisions of section 517, Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered that the half notes produced by Abdul Razzak should be returned to him. 3. Rahmat-ul-lah then petitioned the Court of Sessions to revise the Magistrate's order, directing the return of the half notes to Abdul Razzak. 4. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Magistrate acting under the provisions of section 517, Code of Criminal Procedure, ordered that the half notes produced by Abdul Razzak should be returned to him. 3. Rahmat-ul-lah then petitioned the Court of Sessions to revise the Magistrate's order, directing the return of the half notes to Abdul Razzak. 4. Acting under the powers conferred by section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judge annulled the Magistrate's order, and directed that the half notes which had been produced by Abdul Razzaq should be made over to Rahmat-ul-lah. Abdul Razzak now moves this Court to review the order of the learned Judge. The case Debi Prashad v. Puran, [1898] 18 A.W.N., 40 is authority, if authority were wanted, for holding that this Court can interfere in revision with an order made under section 520, Code of Criminal Procedure. That section provides that a Court, after annulling an order under section 517, may “make any further orders that may be just.” 5. The question we have to decide is whether the order of the learned Sessions Judge, directing the half notes produced by Abdul Razzak to be made over to Rahmat-ul-lah is, under the circumstances, a just order. 6. In my opinion it is not, In the first place, I see no reason whatever for doubting that Abdul Razzak received the half notes in good faith and gave value for them. It is true that Rahmat-ul-lah endeavoured to make out that the right halves of currency notes are not received before the left halves, but the learned Magistrate finds that no such custom exists. 7. Now had Abdul Razzak received whole currency notes in good faith, there is no doubt that he would have been entitled to retain them, even if it had been proved that the currency notes had been stolen. In the present case the half notes which Abdul Razzak received had not been stolen or criminally misappropriated by Abdul Haq. I have not been able to find any case in which the rule regarding whole currency notes has been applied to half notes. But it is clear that it was the conduct of Rahmat-ul-lah in allowing Abdul Haq to retain possession of the half notes which enabled the latter to perpetrate the fraud on Abdul Razzak. I have not been able to find any case in which the rule regarding whole currency notes has been applied to half notes. But it is clear that it was the conduct of Rahmat-ul-lah in allowing Abdul Haq to retain possession of the half notes which enabled the latter to perpetrate the fraud on Abdul Razzak. “When a question arises between two persons who shall bear a loss resulting from the fraud of a third, the one who has been guilty of negligence shall suffer.” (Foster v. Green, [1862] 7 H, and N., 881, 883, Gray arguendo). Applying this, principle to the facts of the present case, I am of opinion that it is not just to direct that the half notes produced by Abdul Razzak should be made over to Rahmat-ullah. I would therefore set aside the order of the learned judge and direct that Rahmat-ul-lah restore the half notes to Abdul Razzak. To provide for the contingency of Rahmat-ul-lah having parted with the notes and thus put it out of his power to comply with this order, I would in the alternative direct that Rahmat-ul-lah pay Abdul Razzak the sum of Rs. 75. 8. This under the circumstances appears to me to be the order which is just. KNOX, J. I concur. BY THE COURT The order of the Court below is set aside and an order will issue directing that Rahmat-ul-lah restore the half notes to Abdul Razzak or, if the half notes cannot be returned, pay Abdul Razzak the sum of Rs. 75.