JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard both the sides for final disposal. 2. This proceeding is filed to challenge the order made by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taloda in STCC No. 287 of 2011 on Exh. 31 and also the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada in Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2012. 3. It appears that the petitioner was prosecuted for offence punishable under sections 100 and 117 of Bombay Police Act in the Court of JMFC, Taloda. He came to be acquitted. This decision of acquittal was challenged by respondent No. 2 Goshala by filing Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2012. The appeal came to be dismissed. However, in the operative order in view of the submissions made by the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge directed to fix the price of the cattle, which were given in the custody of present respondent No. 2 Goshala and give the price to the accused present petitioner. The interim custody was given to Goshala and only due to the request made by the petitioner of aforesaid nature, such order was made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. 4. It appears that as per the directions given by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Commissioner was appointed to fix the price. The petitioner was not satisfied with the report prepared by the Court Commissioner and he filed application before JMFC against the said report. This objection in respect of report of Court Commissioner is rejected by JMFC. 5. It appears that the petitioner has grievance that on one hand, he had purchased 24 cattle for the consideration of more than Rs. 1.5 lakh and the age of the cattle was around 5-6 years and on the other hand, the Court Commissioner considered age of the cattle for fixing the price and the age of the cattle are 15 to 16 years when cattle are produced before him. It can be said that in ordinary course, the Sessions Court ought to have directed Goshala to return the cattle, but only due to the request made by the petitioner, the order of aforesaid nature is made and due that there are some complications. It can be said that in ordinary course, the Sessions Court ought to have directed Goshala to return the cattle, but only due to the request made by the petitioner, the order of aforesaid nature is made and due that there are some complications. When there are such complications and when the order is made by the Court, it becomes duty of the Court to ascertain the amount which needs to be returned to the petitioner/accused. It is not disputed that the order made by the Sessions Court has become final and it is not challenged by the Goshala. 6. In view of these circumstances, the matter is remanded back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the dispute is to be decided in the Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 2012. It is up to the Sessions Court now to decide what amount needs to be paid by respondent No. 2 Goshala in view of the rival contentions. Both the sides to appear before the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 25.11.2013. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. Ordered accordingly.