B.S. Somasundaram, J.
1. On the night of 28th July, 1968 at the village of Meesal in Ramnad District, gold chain weighing about five sovereigns and cash amounting to Rs. 2,735 were stolen from the house of Ibrahim Bathuma (P.W. 1). On information furnished by the accused, there was recovery both of the chain and the cash from the accused and some persons to whom he had given. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramnad, convicted the accused and directed the return of the M.Os. to the complainant, namely P.W. 1. On appeal, the Sessions Judge of Ramnad acquitted the accused and ordered that the property involved in the case should be returned to the accused. Aggrieved at this order, the complainant has come up to this Court. P.W. 1 in the case is the person who has been adversely affected by the order now made by the learned Sessions Judge. There has been no notice to her. Though there is no reference in Section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the sue of any notice to the concerned parties before the order regarding the disposal of the property is made as observed in State Bank of India v. Rajendra Kumar : 1969CriLJ659 there is in the eye of law a necessary implication that the parties adversely affected should be heard before the Court makes an order for the return of the seized property. The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and it is set aside. The matter shall be disposed of by him after giving notice to the parties concerned. The Criminal Revision Case is allowed.