JUDGMENT : STANLEY, C.J.:— The applicant, Gopi Nath, was convicted of an offence punishable under section 406 of the Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. It appears that certain property, which belonged to one Beni Prasad, was entrusted to him and was misappropriated. The Magistrate before whom he was tried passed an order under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for restitution to the complainant, Beni Prasad, of portion of the property found to have been misappropriated. The applicant preferred an appeal against his conviction, and upon appeal the learned Sessions Judge, whilst upholding the conviction, reduced the sentence of imprisonment. He further directed that certain gold mohurs, a sovereign, and a gold chain which were found by him to have been portion of the misappropriated property, but which had not been included in the order of the Magistrate passed under section 517, should be restored to the complainant. Against this order the present application in revision is made. It is contended by Mr. Hamilton on behalf of the applicant that the lower appellate Court had no power to order the restitution of the property which had not been included in the order for disposal passed by the learned Magistrate. There appears to me to be no substance in this contention. Under section 423 (d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appellate Court is entitled in an appeal from a conviction, and in other cases, to make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper. The order directing restoration of the property which was found to have belonged to the complainant was clearly in my opinion a consequential or incidental order within the meaning of this section and one which was under the circumstances just and proper. That the Legislature contemplated that an order passed under section 517 might be reconsidered and amended on appeal may be gathered from the language of section 517, which provides that an order made under it in a case in which an appeal lies shall not, except in certain cases, be carried out until the period allowed for such appeal has passed, or, when such appeal has been presented within such period, until the appeal has been disposed of. If the order for the disposal of property in the custody of the Court passed by the Magistrate could not be amended on appeal, there seems to be no reason why that order should not be carried into execution forthwith and not be postponed until the time for presenting an appeal has passed, or, when an appeal was presented, until the appeal had been disposed of. The application is rejected.