ORDER H.C.P. Tripathi, J. - This revision is directed against an order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mirzapur upholding the applicant's conviction and sentence of Rs. 200/- as fine u/s 448 IPC passed by Sri A.U. Khan, Tahsildar, Magistrate Second Class, Chunar Mirzpur on 17.12.1963. The learned Magistrate while convicting the applicant also passed an order u/s 522 of Code of Criminal Procedure ordering the possession of the rooms from which the complainant was dispossessed to be restored to him. 2. Opposite Party Moti Chand filed a complaint before the Magistrate on the allegation that he was a tenant in occupation of some rooms in the upper storey and one room and a verandah downstairs in the premises in question wherein he was carrying on his business of manufacturing Biris under a licence from the Government, and that during his absence the applicant broke open a wall of the upper room and took forcible possession over the same. On his return he gave a notice to the applicant on 21.2.63 to vacate the wrongful possession but it was not heeded to. Hence the complaint. The defence of the accused was that he was the owner of the house in question under a sale deed dated 4.3.1963 which he had obtained from the previous owner and that the opposite party had been a tenant of only a verandah and a chabutra or the ground floor and that his case of being a tenant of some rooms on the upper storey was absolutely false. The learned Magistrate on assessment of evidence led by the parties reached the conclusion that the opposite party was in possession of one room and the kotha and that he had been dispossessed forcibly by the applicant during his absence and, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as indicated earlier. On appeal the conviction and sentence of the applicant was maintained by the learned Sessions Judge. 3. Learned Counsel in his arguments has not seriously challenged the conviction of the applicant u/s 448 of IPC. On the basis of the testimony furnished by the complainant and his witnesses Nanhakoo Ram Singh and Nanhakoo Ram (P.Ws. 2 and 3) it has been satisfactorily established that the apposite party had been in possession of some room in the upper storey and that the applicant had taken possession of the same during his absence. On the basis of the testimony furnished by the complainant and his witnesses Nanhakoo Ram Singh and Nanhakoo Ram (P.Ws. 2 and 3) it has been satisfactorily established that the apposite party had been in possession of some room in the upper storey and that the applicant had taken possession of the same during his absence. I am, therefore, satisfied that the conviction of the applicant u/s 448 IPC is only justified. 4. Learned Counsel has, however, argued that on the facts found established by the courts below the order of the Magistrate u/s 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the restoration of the possession of the rooms in dispute to the opposite party is illegal. I find force in this contention. 5. It was the case of the complainant himself that the possession of the room was taken during his absence, The lower appellate court has remarked that "under the circumstances of the present case it is not proved that any criminal force or show of force or criminal intimidation was exercised by the accused against the complainant at the time of taking possession". When the complainant and his family members were absent the question of any criminal force or show of force having been exercised by the applicant against them does not arise. 6. u/s 350 of IPC if some one uses force to any person....he is said to use criminal force to that person. It is obvious, therefore, that there can be no use of criminal force against an inanimate object. Section 522(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, reads: Power to restore possession of immovable property-(1) whenever a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and it appears to the Court that by such force or show of force or criminal intimidation any person has been dispossessed of any immovable property, the Court may, if it thinks fit, when convicting such person or at any time within one month from the date of the conviction, order the person dispossessed to be restored to the possession of the same. Therefore, in order to exercise a power u/s 522(1) of the Code it must be found that the person convicted of the offence has dispossessed the other person by force or show of force or criminal intimidation. Therefore, in order to exercise a power u/s 522(1) of the Code it must be found that the person convicted of the offence has dispossessed the other person by force or show of force or criminal intimidation. There being no such finding in the instant case, the learned Magistrate, in my opinion, had no jurisdiction to direct the restoration of possession of the rooms in favour of the opposite party. 7. In case of Nani Gopal Deb and Another Vs. Bhima Charan Rakshit, AIR 1956 Cal 32 it was held by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that when the entry into the rooms by the accused was made in the absence of the landlord or his men, it cannot be said that the dispossession was attended by any criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and, therefore, the Magistrate's order u/s 522(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was without jurisdiction. The decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ram Prasad and Anr. v. State (2) ( 1957 AWR 870 ) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the opposite party does not help him inasmuch as there also it was held that an order Under Sub-section (1) of Section 522 can be revisable like other orders of an inferior court by the High Court on the grounds of impropriety, illegality or incorrectness of the order itself. In the instant case I have already held that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass that order on the allegations made in the complaint. 8. In the result, I affirm the conviction and sentence of the applicant but set aside the order passed by the Magistrate u/s 522(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the restoration of the rooms to the opposite party. With this modification in the order, the revision is rejected.