D. P. Sinha, J. 1. The petitioners have come up in revision in the following circumstances. 2. Ramchandra Singh opposite party no. 3 filed a partition suit being no. 82 of 1967 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Samastipur for partition of certain properties including an orchard, in which there are mango trees. It is alleged that the petitioners who are defendants are disputing the title of the plaintiff (Ramchandra Singh) with regard to the properties in dispute. The subordinate Judge appointed a receiver, who under his orders, took possession of the disputed property including the orchard. While the property was under the management and charge of the receiver the petitioners were alleged to have dishonestly plucked and carried away mangoes worth Rs. 200/- from a tree in the orchard. Having received information about it, the receiver applied to the court of the sub-ordinate Judge and obtained sanction for filing a complaint against the petitioners and thereafter he filed a complaint and the case proceeded before the Magistrate. Subsequently, the receiver applied to the court of the Subordinate Judge for sanction to compound the offence and sanction was accordingly given. Thereupon the plaintiff filed an objection before the court of the subordinate Judge objecting to the grant of the sanction and prayed that order, dated 4.3.70 by which sanction had been accorded be recalled and the prayer of the receiver be rejected and that the receiver be directed to proceed with the case. The objection was overruled and the order giving permission to the receiver to compound the offence was allowed to stand. Then the receiver filed a petition before the Magistrate praying that permission be accorded to compound the offence. The Magistrate rejected the prayer on the ground that the offence of theft of mangoes could be compounded only with the owner and since the receiver was not owner of the mangoes, he was not entitled to compound the offence. He further held that since an offence under section 144 of the Indian Penal Code was not compoundable no permission with regard to that offence could be given. 3. The question for consideration is as to whether the offence under section 379 relating to the mangoes valued at Rs. 200/- could be compounded by the receiver acting under the order of the subordinate Judge. 3. The question for consideration is as to whether the offence under section 379 relating to the mangoes valued at Rs. 200/- could be compounded by the receiver acting under the order of the subordinate Judge. The answer to this question depends upon the interpretation of the word "owner" occurring in column 3 of the schedule to sub section (2) of section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which applies to this case. Since the value of the mangoes was Rs. 200/- the offence was compoundable by the owner thereof with the permission of the court before which prosecution for the said offence was pending. 4. From the statements made by the learned Counsel for the parties it appears that there is a serious litigation with regard to the property in dispute including the orchard from which mangoes had been plucked. It is said that the petitioners are challenging the title and possession of the plaintiff and that they have denied the right of the plaintiff to seek partition. It was perhaps on account of the seriousness of the dispute that receiver had been appointed by the Subordinate Judge to remain incharge and manage the suit property. It is quite obvious that the property is now under custodia legis and the court of the Subordinate Judge holds the property through the receiver for the true owner. The theft of the mangoes appears to have taken place after the receiver took charge and came in possession of the orchard. The complaint had been filed by him with the permission of the Subordinate Judge. 5. The word "owner" is not defined in the Code. There can be little doubt however, that in the word "owner" the emphasis is on "possession". This would also appear from the meaning of the word indicated in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. The complaint had been filed by him with the permission of the Subordinate Judge. 5. The word "owner" is not defined in the Code. There can be little doubt however, that in the word "owner" the emphasis is on "possession". This would also appear from the meaning of the word indicated in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. Since the court holds and possesses the property for the true owner subject to the result of the litigation it must be held that for the purposes of sub section (2) of section 345 of the Code, the court of the Subordinate Judge is the owner and that such court is, therefore, competent to compound the offence of theft of mangoes valued at Rs.200/- through the receiver and the Magistrate had fallen into an error in holding that the receiver was not competent in spite of the sanction accorded by the Subordinate Judge to compound the offence. The application is accordingly allowed and the order of the Magistrate dated 21.3.70 in so far as it related to the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and the Magistrate is directed to apply his mind to the prayer of the receiver and the petitioners with regard to the grant of permission for compounding the offence under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Application allowed.