JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition under section 397 read with section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, dated February 7, 1978. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, which are relevant for the disposal of this revision petition, are that the accused persons Dhanna Ram, Suraj Bhan, Balveer, Chhitar and Chanderbhan, were charge-sheeted under section 447, 380 and 341 I.P.C. One Bhinvaram had purchased a Guwadi on November 29, 1973, from Lachhman for a sum of Rs. 1000/- by means of a registered sale deed. Bhinvaram was put into possession. It was contended that the accused persons broke open the wall and created a way through the wall to the land attached to the Guwadi, and further obstructed the way of complainant by placing bars. In one Kothri, certain goods were lying, of which possession was taken by the accused persons. 3. The police submitted a challan against the accused persons in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Chirawa. The trial Magistrate convicted the accused Dhanna under section 447 I.P.C. to 15 days R. I. and to a fine of Rs. 100/- under section 341 I.P.C. in default of payment of fine, to further imprisonment for 7 days, it was ordered that the possession of the land be restored back to Bhinvraj. 4. Feeling aggrieved, against the judgement of the Judicial Magistrate, Dhanna Ram filed an appeal before the learned Session Judge, Jhunjhunu. who partly allowed the appeal, the conviction under section 341 I.P.C. was set aside but the conviction under section 447 I.P.C. was sustained, on February 7, 1978. It is against this decision that the present revision petition has been filed. 5. Shri Datt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has raised a preliminary objection that the present revision petition is not maintainable, as the order relating to restoration of possession under section 456 I.P.C. was not challenged before the lower appellate court. It was also contended that even in the memorandum of revision petition, it has not been stated that the order of restoration was in any way, challenged. He has placed reliance on Gottipulla Venkata Siva Subbravyanam and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1079. Shri Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. He has placed reliance on Gottipulla Venkata Siva Subbravyanam and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh and another, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1079. Shri Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State, has supported the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. The preliminary objections has no force and as such it is over-ruled. 6. On behalf of the accused-petitioner, it was contained that the ordinary underlying principle of estoppel and waiver do not apply in criminal proceedings, even if a point has not been agitated raised or pressed before the learned lower appellate court. There is no estoppel against a point being raised in the revision proceedings or under an application made under section 482 Cr.P.C. Reliance was placed od Gordhan Das v. State and other, AIR 1968 Raj 241 Sambhu Ray v. Mati Khatik, AIR 1949 Cal 111 ; Jagdish Rewani v. Dr. Rajendra Nath, AIR 1964 Patna 553. 7. The respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered and the record of the case perused.In Gottipulla Venkata Subbrayanam's case (1) (supra), it was held as under : "Held that this conduct on the part of the occupiers and their supporters was sufficient to give rise to a reasonable apprehension in the mind of one of the accused persons that the victims of the assault would have been killed had he not exercised the right of private defence. The use of the gun by the accused against the members of the opposite faction was thus justified. In a situation like this it was not possible for an average person whose mention excitement could be better imagined then described, to weigh the position in golden scales. The accused did not exceed his right of private defence. The fact that the plea of self defence was not raised by the accused and that he had on the contrary pleaded alibi did not preclude the Court from giving to him the benefit of the right of private defence, if on proper appraisal of the evidence and other relevant material on the record the Court concluded that the circumstances in which he found himself at the relevant time gave him the right to use his gun in exercise of this right. The analogy of estoppel or of the technical rules of civil pleadings is, in such cases inappropriate and the Courts are expected to administer the law of private defence in practical way with reasonable liberality so as to effectuate its underlying object bearing in mind that the essential basic character of this right is preventive and not. retributive. In Sambhu Roy's case (3) (supra), it was held as under:- "Section 552 empowers a Court to restore possession whenever a person is convicted of an offence attended by criminal force or show of force or by criminal intimidation and if appears to the court that by such force or show of force or criminal intimidation complainant has been dispossessed of any immovable property. In other words, a complainant if dispossessed by criminal force or show of force or intimidation may recover the property from which he was dispossessed. Where the dispossession was not the result of force or show of force or criminal intimidation, Sec. ,522 has no application. In Jagdish Rawani's case (4) {supra), it was held as under "If the accused takes possession of an immoveable property in the absence of the person in possession and if the accused uses criminal force, criminal intimidation or show of force at the time when the person in possession comes to protest for the first time, the provisions of Section 552 will become attracted. Where all that was said in the evidence was that the accused took a defiant .attitude when the owner (complainant) came to protest for the first time and referred the complainant to the Court and there was no evidence of the presence of weapons with the accused nor was there any evidence to show that the complainant was put to force of physical hurt. : In Gordhan Das's case (2) (surpa), it was held as under. "In view of the provisions of Section 349 and 350 of Penal Code, it is clear that try use of the words 'criminal force' in section 522, it is intended to mean the criminal force as applied to a person and applied to an inanimate object. : In Gordhan Das's case (2) (surpa), it was held as under. "In view of the provisions of Section 349 and 350 of Penal Code, it is clear that try use of the words 'criminal force' in section 522, it is intended to mean the criminal force as applied to a person and applied to an inanimate object. Where while convicting the accused under sections 484 and 380 of Penal Code, for breaking open the locks of a house and making entry therein in the absence of the complainant or his men, the Magistrate also passed an order under section 522 (1) for restoration of the property to the complainant, the order under section 522 (1) is illegal." 8. Before the learned lower appellate court, the findings of facts were not challenged. It has been contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the show of force must be against an individual, it cannot be against an inanimate object. In view of the cases cited above, this contention does not appear to be without force. The direction regarding the restoration of possession under section 456 Cr.P.C. in the facts and circumstances of the case, is without jurisdiction.The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly, allowed and the direction regarding the restoration of possession passed by the learned trial court is set aside. The parties will be at liberty to agitate their rights before a competent civil court. The conviction of Dhanna Ram under section 447 I.P.C. has not been challenged and as such it stands confirmed. *******