M.C. Desai, J.
1. It was pleaded on behalf of the applicant that the order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur restoring possession over the plots to the complainant is against the provisions of Section 522, Cr. P. C. on account of there being no evidence of any use, or show, of criminal force and because the order was passed more than a month after the date on which the applicant was convicted. I do not; find any substance in this plea. There is evidence that the applicant dispossessed Kishorilal by force or show of force. A trial Court can pass an order under Section 522, Cr. P. C.; either while convicting the accused or within one month of the date of conviction; an appellate Court can pass such an Order even though more than a month has expired since the, conviction. The power conferred by Sub-section (3) upon, an appellate Court is same as the power conferred upon a trial Court by Sub-section (1), but the limitation imposed by Sub-section (1) on the exercise of the power by a trial court does not govern the exercise of the power by an appellate Court. An appellate Court's jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 522 is not lost by the expiry of one month since the conviction. It may not have the jurisdiction to pass such an order after it has disposed of the appeal and thereby become functus officio but it has certainly jurisdiction to pass it while disposing of the appeal regardless of the time that has elapsed since the conviction. I do not find anything illegal or improper in the conviction of the applicant under Section 447, I. P. C.
2. The application is dismissed.