Order.- This Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Kolar who has modified the judgment of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolar, in a claim made before him for the crop seized under section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complainant’s case was instituted by K. P. Gurappa under sections 447 and 379 of Indian Penal Code and the accused was B. Narayanappa-Petitioner in this case. There is a previous history of a Civil Suit which was filed by one Kongara Ramappa against the complainant K.P. Gurappa which related to a plot of land over which ground-nut crop was raised. The dispute pertains to this ground-nut crop which was being gathered by a few labourers and when the police went for investigation it was stated that they were gathering the crop at the instance of the petitioner-accused. However, in the complaint the ‘B’ Report was submitted by the police. Thereafter B. Narayanappa accused filed an application before the Magistrate that he should be handed over the ground-nut crop thus seized by the police. It has to be made clear that the crop was likely to deteriorate. Therefore, the learned Magistrate ordered for its disposal. At the present a sum of Rs. 450 is lying with the Court. The learned Magistrate under section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code held that the amount of Rs. 450 should be paid to the person who obtains a decree in the Civil Suit i.e. O.S. No. 37 of 1974. Against that decision the petitioner-accused came in appeal before the learned Sessions Judge who modified the order in as much as according to him the sum of Rs. 450 has to be paid to any party who could establish his title in a civil suit. The learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to modify the order in as much as the petitioner-accused was not a party to the civil suit in O.S. No. 37 of 1974 which is pending. 2. Against the decision of the learned Sessions Judge thus modified in appeal, B. Narayanappa accused has come up in the present criminal revision. 3. Under section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned appellate Judge could modify the order of the Magistrate in any manner he thought it to be just. 2. Against the decision of the learned Sessions Judge thus modified in appeal, B. Narayanappa accused has come up in the present criminal revision. 3. Under section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned appellate Judge could modify the order of the Magistrate in any manner he thought it to be just. It is thus for this Court to consider in revision whether the order made by the learned Sessions Judge was just in the circumstances. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondent who was defendant in O.S. No. 37 of 1974 contended that there was already a dispute regarding an injunction in O.S. No. 37 of 1974. The plaintiff-respondent No.2 got injunction against the defendant-respondent No. 1. But, subsequently this injunction order was vacated by the same Court. It was alleged on behalf of respondent No. 1-defendant that he was in joint possession with the plaintiff and therefore the injunction could not be granted in plaintiff’s favour. It was also stated on behalf of the defendant-respondent No. 1 that the accused B. Narayanappa was set up by the plaintiff to interfere in his joint possession. It is manifest the complainant’s case started during the pendency of O.S. No. 37 of 1974. There is a discussion in the judgment of the learned Magistrate that collusion between the petitioner-accused and the plaintiff was asserted in the civil suit. There is definitely an indication that a plea was taken on behalf of the defendant-respondent No. 1, that the petitioner-accused was set up by the plaintiff and admittedly the crop was purchased by the petitioner-accused from the plaintiff during the pendency of that suit. The learned Counsel has submitted that the possession of the petitioner was in fact the possession of the plaintiff and the purpose was to oust the possession of the defendant-respondent No. 1. In such a situation, the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to hand over the crop to the person who may be held to be entitled. That can only be such a person who obtains decree in his favour from a civil Court. Can it be considered then that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not just and must be interfered with in exercise of the power of revision? That can only be such a person who obtains decree in his favour from a civil Court. Can it be considered then that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is not just and must be interfered with in exercise of the power of revision? In my opinion, when there was such a dispute of title as to the crop as there was a serious dispute as to the possession over the land, the best order which the Court could grant was to deliver the crop to one who may be held to be entitled by a competent Court of jurisdiction. In this view of the matter the order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be considered either improper or illegal. 5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on Ramakka v. Byrappa and others1 and Pushkar Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat and another2. Both these cases were based on entirely different facts and the ratio of these cases may not be applicable to the present situation. In the Mysore case, the properties were unidentifiable and were commonly possessed by a large number of persons in rural areas. However, the accused claimed the property to be in exclusive possession and in that contingency the property was ordered to be returned to the accused after discharge or acquittal. In the Supreme Court’s case the learned Judge observed in a theft case where the accused, was acquitted that the money found really belonged to him and not to the complainant. Nor could it be established that the offence was committed in respect of that money; in that situation it was ordered that the money could be returned back to the accused. The present case, is based on entirely different facts. In my opinion, the order cannot be interfered with by way of revision. The petition is therefore dismissed.