JUDGMENT 1. This is a rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Puri as also upon the complainant to show cause why the conviction of and sentences passed on the Petitioners as well as the order complained of by them should not be set aside. The Petitioners have been convicted under sec. 448, I.P.C., and each sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50. The Deputy Magistrate has also ordered delivery of possession of the house in dispute as also of certain property recovered to be made over to the complainant. 2. The facts of the case are these:--The complainant is a woman of the name of Dochhi. She went off to Purl on a visit and in her absence certain persons took possession of the house and established there a boy, alleged to be the adopted son of the father of the complainant. Dochhi complained to the Deputy Magistrate of house trespass and theft and the Deputy Magistrate convicted the Petitioners of house trespass and sentenced them as mentioned above. It is clear that the case is one, not of criminal but of civil trespass. The Petitioners took possession of the house for the alleged adopted son and are now in possession. The complainant says that certain articles of her property were removed. But the accused have not been convicted of theft. On the contrary, the Deputy Magistrate says the things carried off are not identifiable and he has abstained from convicting them of theft. He says the things recovered could not be satisfactorily identified. Notwithstanding this, he has ordered possession to be given to the complainant, although he records in his proceeding that the accused have all claimed the things found in their possession as their own. Now, it is extraordinary that the Deputy Magistrate who says that the things cannot be identified, should have ordered them to be delivered to the complainant. Finally, he has ordered possession of the house to be made over to the complainant. We suppose he has passed the order under sec. 522, C. Cr. P. But the provisions of that section do not warrant his doing so because the Petitioners have not been convicted of any offence attended by criminal force. 3. We set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fines, if paid, be refunded. We suppose he has passed the order under sec. 522, C. Cr. P. But the provisions of that section do not warrant his doing so because the Petitioners have not been convicted of any offence attended by criminal force. 3. We set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fines, if paid, be refunded. The property in possession of the Petitioners must be returned to them and possession of the house restored to the persons found in possession of it.