JUDGMENT D. P. Uniyal, J. - This revision application by the four applicants is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge whereby he upheld the convictions and sentences of the applicants under Section 488 I.P.C. 2. The facts are not in dispute. The Courts below have held that the cattle shed in question was purchased by one Shyam Lal from Kedarnath by means of a registered sale deed. After the purchase Shyam Lal was put in possession of the same. He placed his lock on the door of the cattle-shed and stocked, some beams and straw in one of the rooms. It is alleged that the applicants broke open the lock and forcibly entered into possession of the cattle-shed in spite of the protests of Shyam Lal. But the courts below have believed the prosecution evidence that the applicants committed criminal trespass. 3. I, therefore, see no force in this application in revision which is accordingly dismissed. 4. Connected with this revision application there is an application made by Shyam Lal under Section 522(3) Cr.P.C. seeking the restoration of the cattle shed which had been forcibly occupied by the applicants. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that the application of Shyamlal is beyond time inasmuch as it was not made within one month of the date of the order of conviction of the applicants. In my opinion this submission has no force. The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 522 make it clear that the order contemplated by Section 522 can be made even by a Court hearing a revision and that such an order can be made at any time irrespective of the fact whether it was made after one month of the date of the conviction. 5. I, therefore allow the application and direct that the possession of the premises in question shall be restored to Shyam Lal. The applicants if they are so advised are at liberty to take appropriate proceedings in the civil court for vindication of their rights, if any.