JUDGMENT 1. - These two revision petitions have been filed by first informant Lumba Ram - one against the order dated 25.3.1994 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate accepted the F.R. and ordered that the recovered property (buffalo) shall be auctioned, and the second against the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jodhpur dated 30.5.1994 whereby he accepted the revision petition filed by Meera Ram against the order dated 25.3.1994 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate and ordered that the buffalo and its progeny be given to Meera Ram. 2. The relevant facts are that Lumba Ram had lodged a report on 16.1.1993 at P.S. Dangiyavas stating that his three she-buffalos were missing. Thereafter on 7.2.1993 he lodged a report referring to his earlier report dated 16.1.1993 stating that he had seen one of his buffalo tied in the-house of Gordhan Ram Vishnoi of village Guda Vishnoiyan. On this report a case under section 379 IPC was registered. During investigation, the police seized the buffalo from Meera Ram. Statements of various witnesses were recorded. Eventually, police came to the conclusion that the buffalo recovered from Meera Ram did not belong to Lumba Ram and this buffalo was not the stolen property. At the same time, the Police held that the buffalo seized from the house of Meera Ram did not belong to Meera Ram but it belonged to someone else which reached in Guda Vishnoiyan while moving. The police gave F.R. in the matter. The learned Magistrate after hearing the first informant accepted the final report and ordered that the buffalo be auctioned and the parties may get their rights decided by the Civil Court. 3. This part of the order that the buffalo be auctioned was challenged by Meera Ram by filing revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. The revision petition was heard by Addl. Sessions Judge who held by the impugned order that the buffalo and its progeny be handed over to Meera Ram from whom buffalo was seized. The petitioner has filed revision petition No. 298/94 against that order. He has filed revision petition No. 237/94 against the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the F.R. 4. Mr. Sessions Judge who held by the impugned order that the buffalo and its progeny be handed over to Meera Ram from whom buffalo was seized. The petitioner has filed revision petition No. 298/94 against that order. He has filed revision petition No. 237/94 against the order passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the F.R. 4. Mr. Rajvanshi contends that the learned Magistrate has erred in accepting the F.R. as by the evidence produced in the case it was amply proved that the buffalo belonged to Lumba Ram and it was stolen property in the hands of Meera Ram. 5. Mr. Vishnoi, on the other hand urges that the buffalo recovered from Meera Ram was the off spring of the buffalo which was purchased by him from one Pukh Raj. Pointing out that the FIR was lodged by Lumba Ram after he had seen the buffalo in the house of Meera Ram, he argues that on the basis of features of buffalo of Meera Ram, Lumba Ram recovered features of his missing buffalo in the report. 6. I have considered the above arguments. In the report dated 16.1.1993 lodged by Lumba Ram it was stated that three cattle heads were missing for the last 20 days. It was further stated that one of the buffalo was black having cut horns and nodule on the left side of its neck. In the report dated 7.2.1993 Lumba Ram stated that he had seen a buffalo of the features mentioned by him in his earlier report in the house of Gordhan Ram. 7. It is not in dispute that some of the features of the buffalo mentioned in the report dated 6.1.1993 tally with the buffalo seized from Meera Ram. But the case of Meera Ram in the affidavit is that Lumba Ram had visited his house in December, 1992 during the days, riots had taken place and he had told him that his cattle heads were missing and at that time he had seen his buffalos but he did not state that any of them belonged to him rather his comment was that none of the buffalos in his house belonged to him. His further case is that thereafter Lumba Ram lodged the report mentioning the features of his buffalo which he saw on that day. His further case is that thereafter Lumba Ram lodged the report mentioning the features of his buffalo which he saw on that day. Lumba Ram has not denied in his affidavit that he had gone to the house of Meera Ram in December, 1992 during the days, riots had taken place. Both the parties have produced witnesses in support of their contentions. From the affidavit of Meera Ram it is established that Lumba Ram had visited his house prior to 16.1.1993. As such, it was not difficult for him to have mentioned the features of the buffalo which was in the house of Meera Ram. As such, on the basis of the report dated 16.1.1993 it can not be found that the buffalo belongs to Lumba Ram. 8. The learned Judicial Magistrate has considered the entire material collected during the investigation and the affidavits filed before him by both the parties. Meera Ram has also filed an affidavit of Jetha Ram who says that he used to take this buffalo for grazing and Meera Ram paid Rs. 20/- per day for the job. In view of the material placed on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate was perfectly justified in holding that it was not established that the buffalo seized in the case belonged to Lumba Ram and it was stolen property. 9. There is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate when he accepted the F.R. given by the police. Thus, there is no merit in the revision petition No. 237/94. 10. Coming to the second revision petition No. 238/94 it may be stated that after the acceptance of the F.R. the buffalo did not remain the stolen property. Admittedly, it was recovered from the possession of Meera Ram. This is the consistent view of the Courts that when accused is acquitted or discharged and it is not proved that the property recovered from him is the stolen property, the same should be returned to him unless there are special circumstances which would render such a course unjustifiable. Even if the title of Meera Ram was doubtful in the view of the police, yet he was the person entitled to its possession. The petitioner has got absolutely no case in his favour to obtain the possession of the buffalo or its progeny. There is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 11. Even if the title of Meera Ram was doubtful in the view of the police, yet he was the person entitled to its possession. The petitioner has got absolutely no case in his favour to obtain the possession of the buffalo or its progeny. There is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 11. Consequently, the revision petitions being devoid of merit, are dismissed.Revision dismissed. *******