JUDGMENT : 1. Both the Revision Petitions are taken up together for disposal as in both petitions challenge have been made against the common judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Court of Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Nagaon, in Criminal Appeal No.11(N)/2008 dated 07.09.2009. 2. Briefly stated, one Md. Abdul Salam lodged a complaint which was registered as C.R. Case No.1981/99, in the Court of learned SDJM, Nagaon with regard to mis-appropriation of 22 buffalos, by accused persons namely Abdul Gafur, Mujibur Rahman and Habibur Rahman. The said case was registered u/s.420/06/506/34 IPC and while the case was at the hearing stage, both the parties entered into a compromise, which is as follows: "We, the complainant and the accused persons named hereinabove both beg to humbly submit that the case referred to above was among us brothers the prominent persons of our village partitioned our paternal properties as well as all the movable and immovable properties purchased by us among us three brothers. We the parties took delivery of our respective shares of the properties. There is no property left for partitioning among us brothers and we have accepted the parties of the properties as affected by the public. We shall never indulge in any sort of quarrel or dispute over any part of our parental and purchased properties in the future. Nor shall be raised any sort of objection what so ever. Even if any such objection is ever raised, such objections shall be deemed null and void. We the parties do hereby pledge to live as brothers in future and shall never indulge in any quarrels. We, therefore, request you to take cognizance of these deed of compromise and dismiss the instant suit and oblige. Your truly 19-08-2000. List of properties/articles received in the shares of both the parties: 1. Complainant Abdul Salam and his brother Ibrahim Ali got in their shares 17 (seventeen) Buffalos (Purchase and paternal) including both big and small ones. 2. Accd. Abdul Gafur got in his shares 10 (ten) buffalos (Paternal) including both big and small. 3. Thereafter the Court on the basis of such compromise, passed the order dated 19.08.2000, in the C.R. Case No.1981/99, which reads as follows: "Complainant present. Accused are also present. Heard both sides Ld. Advocates in the matter of disputed buffalos and also in respect of compromise. 3. Thereafter the Court on the basis of such compromise, passed the order dated 19.08.2000, in the C.R. Case No.1981/99, which reads as follows: "Complainant present. Accused are also present. Heard both sides Ld. Advocates in the matter of disputed buffalos and also in respect of compromise. The petitioner’s case in brief is that after the death of his father some buffalos of deceased father were distributed among five brothers of complainant. Complainant received 8 of them, later in the year 1984 along with his brother Ibrahim Ali he purchased another 24 numbers of buffalos from the accused a person Pram Ch. Adhikari. After some years on request of his brother/accused Abdul Gafar, complainant gave all his buffalos to the custody of his brother on good faith that he would look after the same. But after sometimes complainant came to know that his brother started to sell the buffalos which were in the custody of him. And when complainant asked about the selling of buffalos his brother along with other accused tried to assault him and also gave threatening with dire consequences. In this way accused cheated him by taking buffalos from him with an intention to sell them. And finding no other alternative complaint had instituted this case against accuseds. Accuseds namely Abdul Gafar, Mazibur Rahman, Habibur Rahman duly appeared before the Court and they were allowed to go on Court bail. At the time of evidence, Complainant has examined two witnesses. Defence examined none. From the evidence of witnesses it seems that the villagers has settled the dispute and distributed the buffalos equally to all brothers. And both the parties are satisfied on that settlement. It also came to notice of the Court that they are living happily with good understanding. I have gone through the statement of accused. They expressed that complainant is their own brother and uncle and they have settled the dispute outside of the Court and at present their relationship with the complaint is quite healthy. It appears that due to some misunderstanding the dispute took place between both the parties. Keeping this view and also considering the above discussion I am of the opinion that accused are not held liable U/S.420/406/34 IPC. So, they are acquitted from the charges of this case beyond all reasonable doubts and set at liberty forthwith. Bail bonds of accused stands cancelled. Keeping this view and also considering the above discussion I am of the opinion that accused are not held liable U/S.420/406/34 IPC. So, they are acquitted from the charges of this case beyond all reasonable doubts and set at liberty forthwith. Bail bonds of accused stands cancelled. Return the seized buffalos from whom it was seized in due course of law." 4. In the meantime, another complaint case being C.R. No.35/2000 was filed by one Jalaluddin against Abdul Gafur and Ranjit Saikia who is the O.C. of the River Police Station, Tezpur. It can be mentioned here that in the C.R. Case No.1981/99, there was a direction of seizure of 22 numbers of buffalos which was given in the zimma/custody of Gaoburha Indra Deo Harijan. 5. On the other hand, in the said C.R. Case No.35/2000, on the strength of the search warrant that was issued by the Court, the C.I., C.B.C. seized 10 numbers of buffalo from said Indra Deo Harijan and the same matter was reported by the zimmadar Indra Deo Harijan before the Court on 07.04.2000, pertaining to C.R. Case No.1981/99. On the basis of the said submission, the Court of learned SDJM, Nagaon passed an order in C.R. Case No.1981/99, calling for a police report after proper inquiry. Accordingly the police report was also filed, as called for. 6. In the meantime, the C.R. Case No.35/2000 was disposed of wherein one Abdul Gafur was convicted, who preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment wherein he was acquitted by the Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court while acquitting the accused from the charge, has also perused the C.R. Case No.1981/99 and came to the conclusion that the complaint in C.R. Case No.35/2000 regarding the buffalos, being forcibly taken away, were seized while executing the search warrant in C.R. Case No.1981/99 and as the said dispute has already been resolved through compromise, the complaint case was filed due to misunderstanding. 7. In the meantime, the original complainant Abdul Salam who filed the C.R. Case No.1981/99, lodged a zimma petition u/s.452 CrPC on 03.04.2006, alleging inter alia that the seized buffalos were not returned to him by the zimmadar in terms of order dated 19.08.2000 and he prayed for zimma of the said buffalos. 7. In the meantime, the original complainant Abdul Salam who filed the C.R. Case No.1981/99, lodged a zimma petition u/s.452 CrPC on 03.04.2006, alleging inter alia that the seized buffalos were not returned to him by the zimmadar in terms of order dated 19.08.2000 and he prayed for zimma of the said buffalos. The said case was registered as M.R. Case No.139/2006, to which the other party raised objection and finally the learned Court of SDJM dismissed the case on 21.08.2007, by holding the same is not maintainable. 8. The revision preferred against the said order was also closed by the Revisional Court by holding that revision is not maintainable and it is open for the parties to prefer an appeal. Accordingly the Crl. Appeal No.11(N)/2008 was preferred by the appellant Abdul Salam, praying for zimma of the 22 buffalos which were given zimma to Indra Deo Harijan. The appellate Court took note of all the factual aspects/episodes of the matter between the parties including the disputes raised in C.R. Case No.1981/99 and in C.R. Case No.35/2000. 9. The learned appellate Court also took note of the fact that as the case was disposed on compromise on 19.08.2000 and such a petition for zimma after about six years i.e. on 03.04.2006 is not maintainable, there being no any delay petition to condone the delay. However the Court was pleased to condone the delay on certain appreciation of the matter on the ground that the said C.R. Case No.1981/99 was sent to the Court where the C.R. Case No.35/2000 was pending and returned back only after disposal of the said case in the year 2003. 10. On the matter of return of seized 22 numbers of buffalos to the complainant, learned appellate Court held as under: "Regarding the handing over 12 nos. of seized buffaloes to the petitioner Abdul Salam though there is no document showing receipt of said 12 nos. of buffaloes from the zimmadar yet from the compromise petition dated 19.08.2000 filed in C.R. Case No.1981/99 it is noticed that Abdul Salam admitted regarding receipt of 17 nos. of buffaloes which is admitted by him to be received as per the village mel. of buffaloes from the zimmadar yet from the compromise petition dated 19.08.2000 filed in C.R. Case No.1981/99 it is noticed that Abdul Salam admitted regarding receipt of 17 nos. of buffaloes which is admitted by him to be received as per the village mel. Though there is no mention that the said buffaloes were received from the zimmadar Indraddeo Harijan yet as the said compromise petition is related to the inherited buffaloes from the fore father of the complainant and the accused and which is also the disputed property involved in the C.R. Case so, the claim of the Zimmadar regarding handing over 12 nos. of buffaloes to the complainant as per the said compromise petition can be quite acceptable. Otherwise where from those buffaloes would obtained by the complainant as disclosed in the compromise petition. Complainant could not discharge his burden that 12 buffalos which were received by him in view of the compromise petition did not belong to the seized buffaloes which were given to the zimma of zimmadar Indra Deo Harijan. But zimmadar could not explain by adducing any legal evidence what happened to the remaining 10 nos. of buffaloes. Though the zimmadar claimed that those 10 nos. of buffaloes were seized from him in C.R. Case No.35/2000, pending at Tezpur yet he could not prove the said fact by any documentary evidence or by documents of the case No. C.R. 35/2000. If those 10 buffalos were forcibly taken away from him in connection with C.R. Case No.35/2000 of Tezpur Court, then he ought to have filed a case in that regard. He could not prove the fact that the said seized 10 buffalos in C.R. Case No.35/2000 of Tezpur Court are amongst the 22 buffaloes given in his zimma in C.R. Case No.1981/99. As he failed to establish the plea that 10 nos. of buffaloes were seized from him in connection with Tezpur Court so as a Zimmadar of 1981/99, he is liable to return back the said 10 buffaloes to the petitioner Abdul Salam." 11. The aforesaid order has now been challenged by both the parties on two different connotations. As he failed to establish the plea that 10 nos. of buffaloes were seized from him in connection with Tezpur Court so as a Zimmadar of 1981/99, he is liable to return back the said 10 buffaloes to the petitioner Abdul Salam." 11. The aforesaid order has now been challenged by both the parties on two different connotations. The original complainant who filed the C.R. Case No.1981/99, has preferred the present petition u/s.397/401 CrPC, claiming that the learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the zimmadar is liable to return all the 22 seized buffalos that was given to his zimma in terms of the order dated 19.08.2000, in C.R. Case No.1981/99. On the other hand, the objection raised by the zimmadar Indra Deo Harijan that although the learned appellate Court has rightly observed that the complainant has already received 12 buffalos in terms of the compromise petition but has failed to appreciate the fact that the remaining 10 buffalos were also seized in connection with the C.R. Case No.35/2000 and it was given to the zimma of another Gaonburha and he has no any obligation to return such buffalos, as has been directed. 12. Both the petitioners have commonly challenged the aforesaid findings. 13. I have gone through the entire materials on record and the submission that has been made by the learned counsel for the parties. 14. According to Mr. Inam Uddin, learned counsel, complainant/petitioner Abdul Salam is entitled to all the seized buffalos in terms of the order of the Court dated 19.08.2000 and it still prevails. On the other hand, the learned counsel Mr. P.D. Nair, for and on behalf of the petitioner Indra Deo Harijan has submitted that from the documents on record itself, it reveals that he is no more liable as a zimmadar, as all the seized buffalos were disbursed as indicated above. The relevant orders of the Court, passed from time to time have been placed and this Court has been apprised to all above. Accordingly this Court also has gone through the documents annexed. 15. So far the claim of the original claimant Abdul Salam is concerned, he basically prayed for zimma of the seized buffalos on the strength of the order dated 19.08.2000, wherein the Court has directed to return the seized buffalos to him by the zimmadar. Accordingly this Court also has gone through the documents annexed. 15. So far the claim of the original claimant Abdul Salam is concerned, he basically prayed for zimma of the seized buffalos on the strength of the order dated 19.08.2000, wherein the Court has directed to return the seized buffalos to him by the zimmadar. Now if we carefully examine the entire matter on record in terms of the compromise petition, that has been mentioned above it reveals that as soon as both the parties have settled the matter regarding the properties including the disputed buffalos in the case with certain declaration that they shall never raise any sort of objection and if any objection is ever raised, such objection shall be deemed null and void and they being brothers have settled the matter, the Court ought not have given such direction to the zimmadar while disposing the case. Since the matter was disposed on compromise, nothing survives to raise dispute again and again. 16. Only because of the observation/direction by the Court, the petitioner hand upon the matter claiming the seized buffaloes from zimmadar Indra Deo Harijan and such a direction of the Court is not at all proper and liable to be discarded. 17. As it appears, the zimmadar/petitioner Indra Deo Harijan informed the Court in C.R. Case No.1981/99 about the seizure of 10 buffalos from him out of 22 by the C.I., C.B.C., vide Annexure-4, in Crl. Revision Petition No.439/2009, on the basis of which the learned trial Court directed the O.C. to enquire and furnish a report vide order dated 11.04.2000 (Annexure-5). Thereafter the police furnished the report as mentioned above which make it abundantly clear that the C.I., C.B.C. seized 10 buffalos from Indra Deo Harijan, whereas said Indra Deo Harijan was given zimma of 22 buffalos in connection with C.R. Case No.1981/99, on the strength of search warrant issued by the learned SDJM, Tezpur, in connection with C.R. Case No.35/2000, u/s.392/506/34 IPC. Such a police report obviously leans in favour of the said zimmadar that 10 buffalos are no more with him and was seized and taken away from him on the strength of search warrant of the Court in connection with C.R. Case No.35/2000. 18. Such a police report obviously leans in favour of the said zimmadar that 10 buffalos are no more with him and was seized and taken away from him on the strength of search warrant of the Court in connection with C.R. Case No.35/2000. 18. It is noted that the learned appellate Court has blamed the petitioner zimmadar for not producing the proper documents regarding C.R. Case No.35/2000 that he could not show any documents regarding such forceful seizure from him in the said case but it is found that as the petitioner was made zimmadar in connection with C.R. Case No.1981/99, so he has rightly apprised before the said Court and accordingly the Court has also obtained the police report. As the said police report was not placed before the appellate Court by any of the parties and hence the appellate Court has made such observation. But now it is an admitted position that the petitioner/zimmadar had duly apprised the concerned Court regarding the seizure of rest of the buffalos from him and obviously he is no more under obligation to return 10 buffalos to the petitioner Abdul Salam. Similarly as has been discussed above, the direction of the learned SDJM, Tezpur, while disposing the C.R. Case No.1981/99 on the basis of compromise petition, for return of the seized buffalos, was not at all proper. Accordingly it can be hold that the petitioner Abdul Salam is no more entitled to any seized buffalos in terms of the said order, in the facts and circumstances discussed above. Similarly the zimmadar Indra Deo Harijan is also not under obligation to return the buffalos, as directed by the appellate Court. The order of the appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.11(N)/2008, dated 07.09.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. 19. Both the petitions are disposed of accordingly. 20. Return the LCR immediately.