JUDGMENT 1. - Both the above criminal miscellaneous appeals arise out of the same order July 1,1980 of the learned sessions Judge, Pali. Under the aforesaid order the learned Sessions Judge has ordered that Kailashdan should return three heads of cattle to Chotharam within a period of 15 days of his order. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of these appeals are as follows: In sessions case No. 54/74 under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, ten heads of cattle were given in `Superdginama' of Kailashdan by the learned sessions Judge. Under the `Superdginama' executed by Kailashdan, he undertook to produce the heads of cattle in the court as and when required to do so. In the event of his failure to do so, he bound himself to pay to the state Government the amount mentioned in the `superdginama'. The case was decided by the learned sessions Judge on May 3l, 1975. It was ordered by the learned Sessions Judge that the ten heads of the cattle be returned to Chotharam from whose possession they were recovered. The proceedings thereafter started and Kailashdan was called upon to hand over ten heads of cattle to Chotharam. Kailashdan filed objection on April 30, 1976 that out of ten heads of cattle, seven have died during the pendency of the sessions case and as such he is unable to produce them before the court or to hand over to Chotharam. The learned Sessions Judge made enquiry into the matter as to whether and if so how many heads of cattle had died. In his order dated July 7, 1980, the learned Sessions Judge observed that three heads of cattle are still alive and he ordered Kailashdan to return it to Chotharam. 3. Two appeals have been filed against the aforesaid order of the learned Sessions Judge, one by Kailashdan against the order directing him to hand over three heads cattle and the other has been filed by the Ratan and other against that part of the order under which he has held that out of seven cattle heads, except three had died during the pendency of the case and as such Kailashdan cannot be asked to hand over those cattle's which have died. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. It appears from the order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as from the material on record,that Kailashdan failed to prove that three heads of cattle,as mentioned in the order of the learned Sessions Judge actually died. The `supurdar' is bound to restore the property which was hand over to him in `superdgi' during the pendency of the case. The custody of the `supurdar' is the custody of the court and if he under the bond or `superdginama' as furnished by him failed to do so, then the court is empowered to take proper steps for the recovery or in the alternative for the realisation of the amount mentioned in the `superdginama' Though few heads of cattle belonged to Kailashdan died during the pendency of the Sessions case, but there is no satisfactory evidence that so far as the cattle heads which were given in the `superdgi' of Kailashdan is concerned, they also died. No reliance can be placed on the certificate of the Sarpanch Ex.A. 1 to Ex. A.3. More so when he states that he has no personal knowledge as to whether the same cattle heads which has been given in `superdgi' of Kailashdan had died. So far as the remaining cattle heads, that is, four out of the seven are concerned, there is sufficient material on record that they died during the pendency of the sessions case and as such the learned Sessions Judged could not have ordered Kailashdan to return those cattle heads also to Ratna and others. 5. I do not find any force in both the appeals and the appeals are hereby dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******