JUDGMENT Sulaiman, J. - This is a reference by, the Additional Sessions Judge of Aligarh. 2. Onkar, the complainant, filed a compliant under sections 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 107 Criminal Procedure Code against the three accused to the effect that they were demanding under the threats the restoration of certain Bahis which were in the complainant's possession. It has been found that these Bahis had been in the possession of Onkar for the last 10 or 11 years but the trying Magistrates found that they really belonged to two of the accused, Muaammat Sabitri and Musammat Deoki. They acquitted the two Musammats but convicted the third accused Nanney. They however passed no order with regard to the restoration of the Bahis to the Musammats but added that if they wanted to get them back they should seek their remedy in a proper court. 3. In an appeal by Nanney, the appellate court, although it did not differ from the finding that the Bahis had been in the possession of Onkar for 11 or 12 years and although it upheld the conviction of Nanney, directed that the Bahis be returned to Musammats Sabitri and Deoki. 4. There can be no doubt that an appellate court u/s 520, Criminal Procedure Code has power to modify, alter or annul an order made u/s 517 or make any further orders that may be just. At the same time there can also be no doubt that the order of the trying Magistrates was under the circumstances quite proper. 5. It was Onkar who had been in possession of these Bahis for 10 or 11 years who complained that the accused persons were threatening him. Although the object of the threat was obviously to obtain possession of the Bahis nevertheless the offence of criminal intimidation was complete even though the accused did not have access to the articles in question. Their convictions could also have been up held if the Bahis did not really belong to the accused. So long as it was clear that the complainant had been in possession of these Bahis for 10 or 11 years, the question of title need not have been gone into by the criminal courts. Their convictions could also have been up held if the Bahis did not really belong to the accused. So long as it was clear that the complainant had been in possession of these Bahis for 10 or 11 years, the question of title need not have been gone into by the criminal courts. That question has, as pointed out by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, become a complicated one and involves the examination of the further questions whether Gopi Nath did or did not purchase the Bahis at an auction-sale and whether the sale to Onkar was a bona fide one or not. These questions were very properly left to be determined by the Civil Court. 6. I therefor accept this reference and set aside that part of the order of the appellate court which directed that the Bahis be made over to the two Musammats. The Bahis if still in the custody of the court should be returned to Onkar from whose possession, they have come.