M. D. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is the revision preferred by the accused persons against the lower appellate Courts order passed under Section 454 Criminal Procedure Code, directing the delivery of the seized paddy to the Complainant Raghunandan. ( 2 ) FOUR Khasra numbers of Mouza Devada, with a total area of about 34 acres, along with standing crops, were attached in the proceedings under section 145 of the Code and were handed over to Ramkripal on Supradnama. It was alleged that, after this, the present applicants-accused forcibly got reaped the crops of these attached lands; and, therefore, Ramkripal lodged the F. I. R. against the present applicants-accused for commission of the offence under Section 379 Indian Penal Code. Investigation followed and some quantity of dhan was seized by the police investigating agency from different places, as per the seizure memos Exs. P-i to P-4 which are on record of the then Cr. Case No. 294 of 78 which was instituted against the present applicants-accused in the matter of commission of the offence of theft and was given on Supradnama to one Supraddar Raghunandan. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, had acquitted the applicants-accused of the offence under Section 379 Indian Penal Code and had ordered the delivery of the seized dhan by the Supraddar Raghunandan to the applicants-accused. In the matter of the order of, acquittal and the further order regarding delivery of seized dhan to the applicants-accused, the trial Court had found that there was no proof, whatsoever, that the seized dhan was the crop of the particular fields which had been attached and then given to Ramkripal on Supradnama in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. Raghunandan, being aggrieved with the said order, preferred the appeal before. the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge set aside the trial Courts order and ordered instead that the dhan seized in the particular criminal case, be returned the Supraddar Raghunandan and not to the applicants-accused. Hence now, the applicants-accused present revision. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants-accused has urged that there was no justification for the lower appellate Court to set aside the trial Courts Order in the matter of return of the seized property i. e. the dhan. Hence now, the applicants-accused present revision. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants-accused has urged that there was no justification for the lower appellate Court to set aside the trial Courts Order in the matter of return of the seized property i. e. the dhan. It is urged in this connection that when the accused persons are acquitted of any offence, the property seized in that connection has to be returned to the ownership of the complainant or anybody else. It is also urged that there is no proof on record that the seized paddy or dhan was of the ownership of the complainant Ramkripal. ( 4 ) I have considered the arguments. The lower appellate Court obviously is found to be wrong in directing the return of the seized paddy to the Supraddar Raghunandan for and on behalf of the complainant Ramkripal. In the matter of this particular order, the lower appellate Court has observed that there was no evidence to prove that the dhan in question was seized from the possession of the applicants-accused; and as such, in the absence of proof, the seized dhan could not be returned to them; and consequently it had to be returned to the Supraddar Raghunandan for and on behalf of the complainant Ramkripal. The lower appellate Court, it may be observed, is not found to have judiciously appreciated the evidence on record in the matter of ownership of the dhan in question, which was seized. ( 5 ) THE seizure memos Exs. P-i to P-4, no doubt, do not show as to from whose possession the various quantities of dhan had been seized. As a matter of fact, all this dhan was found to be stacked at different places; and therefore, these different quantities of dhan had been seized from the particular places and not from any particular individual. The applicants-accused, in their examination under Section 313 of the Code, had vehemently contended in the trial Court that the seized dhan was of their ownership, inasmuch as, it was the crop of their own fields and not of the particular fields which had been attached. ( 6 ) NOW, on scrutiny of the prosecution evidence on record, it is noticed that there is no cogent evidence to prove in the least that the seized quantity of dhan as per the seizure memos Exs. ( 6 ) NOW, on scrutiny of the prosecution evidence on record, it is noticed that there is no cogent evidence to prove in the least that the seized quantity of dhan as per the seizure memos Exs. P-i to P-4, was of those particulars four fields which had been attached in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code. The prosecution evidence itself shows that the applicants-accused had about 40 acres of agricultural land and paddy had been raised in those vast lands. There is no cogent proof that the particular dhan which was seized was of the particular lands attached in the proceedings under Section 145 of the Code; and therefore in the absence of any proof, the seized dhan could not be given to the complainant Ramkripal or the applicants-accused who had large agricultural lands raising the paddy produce and in view of the prosecution evidence that they had produced dhan and had kept them in their own fields from where the dhan in question had been seized, the dhan in question, deserves to be returned to the applicants-accused only and not to the complainant Ramkripal or the Supraddar Raghunandan. The lower appellate Courts Order, hence, does not deserved to be sustained. ( 7 ) IN the result, thus, the revision of the applicants-accused is allowed. Setting aside the order of the lower appellate Court, it is ordered instead, that the seized dhan which is in the supradnama of Raghunandan, be returned to the applicants-accused only. Revision allowed. .