JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - This revision petition raises an interesting question regarding the scope and interpretation of section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A bullock cart belonging to the petitioner was stolen. A month later the yoke of the cart was found in possession of the opposite parties. A case under section 379/411, Indian Penal Code was registered against them by the Police and they were convicted. The Magistrate who tried the case directed that the yoke being the subject matter of the theft be returned to the petitioner and it was accordingly returned to him. Meanwhile, the opposite parties preferred an appeal against their conviction. Their appeal was allowed and the appellate Court directed that the stolen property, namely, the yoke be released in favour of the opposite parties. The latter they filed an application before the Magistrate for a direction to be issued to the petitioner for returning the yoke to them. The petitioner in pursuance of a notice issued to him appeared in Court and stated that the yoke was no more in his possession. After hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate assessed the value of the yoke at Rs. 10/- and directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 10/- to the opposite parties. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this revision. 2. Mr. J.K. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the petitioner contends that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code for the issue of a direction of the nature made in this case and that consequently the order is not in accordance with law and should be vacated. Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code so far as is relevant may be quoted. "517. (1) When an enquiry or a trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal by destruction, confiscation, or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise of any property or document produced before it or in its custody or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. (2) XX XX (3) XX XX (4) XX XX Explanation. (2) XX XX (3) XX XX (4) XX XX Explanation. - In this section the term "property" includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise." Section 520, Criminal Procedure Code which deals with the power of the Courts of appeal and revision runs thus : "520. Any Court of appeal, confirmation, reference or revision may direct any order under section 517, section 518 or section 519, passed by a Court subordinate thereto, to be stayed pending consideration by the former Court, and may modify, alter or annual such order and make any further orders that may be just." In support of his contention, Mr. Mohanty relies on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bishanibhar Rai v. State through Mohan AIR 1953 Allahabad 199. In that case, while discharging an accused person charged with an offence of theft of camels, the Magistrate directed delivery of the camels to the complainant. Against that order, the accused preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. The matter was carried in revision to the High Court. Meanwhile, the complainant had sold away the camels. In the circumstances, the accused made a prayer that the High Court should direct the complainant to deposit the price of the two camels in Court and that the said amount should be paid to him (accused). The High Court rejected this prayer holding that section 517, Criminal Procedure Code presupposes the existence of the property either in the custody of the Court or in the possession of any party to the litigation, and that when the property is disposed of and is no longer available to Court and its money value is also not in the custody of the Court, no order about the payment of money can be passed, under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code and the only remedy for the aggrieved party is to file a suit in the Civil Court. This decision was followed by the Gujarat High Court in Kanchanlal Somalal Chokshi v. The State & anr. AIR 1963 Gujarat 223. 3. This decision was followed by the Gujarat High Court in Kanchanlal Somalal Chokshi v. The State & anr. AIR 1963 Gujarat 223. 3. The contention of the opposite parties is that reading section 517 and the explanation to it together it is dear, that a Court has got power to make an order under section 517 not only in respect of the property either in the custody of the Court or in possession of the parties concerned, but the money equivalent thereof when it is sold and that the explanation is of very wide import which enables the Court to pass an order in respect of either money obtained by sale thereof or other property exchanged for the property originally in deposit or under control of the party. In support of their contention, they rely on Nagendra Nath Singh & others v. Emperor AIR 1934 Cal. 454, Kusha Mandol & others v. Emperor AIR 1934 Cal. 545, Shyamsundar & another v. Teja Singh AIR 1935 Peshawar 98, Korupulu Appalanaidu & another v. Vakaramamurthy & others AIR 1955 A.P. 45 and Ramchandra & another v. Hastimal Jain AIR 1956 Madhya Bharat 161. 4. The facts in the Calcutta case are these : A complaint was lodged that the accused persons had taken away certain logs of wood from a portion of the jungle in khas possession of the complainant. Certain logs of wood were seized from the possession of the accused. The accused was, however, acquitted in the case but the Magistrate ordered that the alleged stolen logs of wood be returned to the complainant. The accused persons preferred an appeal against this order and the appellate Court also ordered stay of restitution of the properties to the complainant. Before this order could be communicated to the complainant, the logs had been returned to him. The appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the trial Magistrate and directed that the logs in question should be returned to the accused. But as it was found that by then the complainant had already converted the logs into his own use, the Magistrate held that no further action could be taken with regard to that property in the Criminal Court and that the accused person may seek relief in Civil Court. But as it was found that by then the complainant had already converted the logs into his own use, the Magistrate held that no further action could be taken with regard to that property in the Criminal Court and that the accused person may seek relief in Civil Court. The correctness of this order was challenged in revision before the High Court at Calcutta, and it was urged on behalf of the accused that even though some of the logs have been used up by the complainant and the rest sold to others, it was open to the Criminal Court to compel the complainant to produce such properties as may be capable of production and also to produce the money equivalent of such properties as may be incapable of production. Referring to this contention their Lordships expressed : "Without disputing for a moment the power which a Criminal Court has got in this respect we thick it will be highly inconvenient on the part of the Court now to launch upon an enquiry as to what happened to the logs, how much has been used up by the opposite parties in constructing their buildings and how much has been sold away and for what price. If it was possible from the record, as it is, to get any idea as to the value of the logs actually fetched at their sale or if any specific amount of money could be seized as representing such sale proceeds, such an order could, with propriety, be made by the Court. It has been pointed out to us that in a certain petition which the opposite parties made, they stated that the value of the logs would be Rs. 300/- or so. Upon such statement as that and without knowing what amount, if any, was actually fetched at the sale it would not be possible for the Court to make any order in petitioner's favour. If an enquiry is to be launched upon in order to ascertain the necessary particulars, there is every likelihood of such an enquiry to be not productive of any satisfactory result. If an enquiry is to be launched upon in order to ascertain the necessary particulars, there is every likelihood of such an enquiry to be not productive of any satisfactory result. We think the order which the learned Additional District Magistrate has made, advising the petitioners Baikuntha Nath Ghose and others to seek relief in the civil Court, is the proper order to make in the circumstances of the case." I fail to see how this decision can in any way help the opposite parties. Although their Lordships did not hold the view as had been done by the Allahabad High Court years later that the sine qua non of an order under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code is the existence of the property either in the custody of the Court or in the possession of any party to the litigation who is amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court, they appear to be of the view that such an order can also be passed in case the property is sold, in respect of the money fetched by such sale as contemplated in the explanation to section 517, Criminal Procedure Code. Their Lordships did not in that case accede to the prayer of the accused that the price of the logs of wood should be fixed by the Court and the complainant directed to deposit that amount. Shyamsundar & another v. Teja Singh AIR 1935 Peshawar 98, however, seems to lend considerable assistance to the case of the opposite parties. In that case, one Teja Singh complained of theft of jewellery from his house. The accused persons who were found in possession of the same were proceeded under section 411, Indian Penal Code and were convicted. The gold ornaments were ordered to be returned to the complainant. On appeal, the accused were acquitted and the appellate Court ordered that the jewellery should be returned to the accused. But the complainant stated that he had sold the golden rods and the necklace and therefore he was unable to obey the order. In these circumstances, the learned Judicial Commissioner held that under section 517 read with section 561(A), the complainant should return to the accused the gold necklace which he had received from the Magistrate or if he has disposed them of he should pay to the accused the equivalent value of the gold to be ascertained by the trial Magistrate himself. In these circumstances, the learned Judicial Commissioner held that under section 517 read with section 561(A), the complainant should return to the accused the gold necklace which he had received from the Magistrate or if he has disposed them of he should pay to the accused the equivalent value of the gold to be ascertained by the trial Magistrate himself. In Korupulu Appalanaidu & another v. Vakaramamurty & others A.I.R 1955 A.P. 45 the case against the accused persons was that they stole 23 bundles of jute belonging to the complainant. They were convicted by the Magistrate who directed return of the jute bundles to the complainant. On appeal by the accused, the appellate Court set aside the conviction and sentence passed on them and directed that the jute bundles should be recovered from the complainant and returned to the accused and that if the jute was not available for return, for any reason, its value of which was fixed at Rs. 500/- should be recovered from the complainant. When this order was sought to be enforced, the complainant raised an objection that the Court had no power to pass such an order as the jute had already been disposed of. This objection filed by the complainant was disallowed and it is the correctness of this order which was challenged in revision before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Dissenting from the decision in Bishambhar Rai v. State through Mohan AIR 1953 Allahabad 199, and accepting the view of the Calcutta High Court in Nagendranath Singh & others v. Emperor AIR 1934 Cal. 454, the learned Judge held that when the property which was originally in possession of one of the parties to the litigation is converted into money or exchanged for some other things, appropriate orders could be passed under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code and that it is manifest from the explanation to section 517 itself that the Court has got power to make an order under section 517 not only in respect of the property either in Court or in possession of the parties concerned, but also the money equivalent thereof when it is sold. It need only be pointed out that so far as the present case is concerned, there being no evidence that the yoke had been sold by the complainant, there is no conversion of the yoke into money. 5. It need only be pointed out that so far as the present case is concerned, there being no evidence that the yoke had been sold by the complainant, there is no conversion of the yoke into money. 5. The last case on which the opposite parties rely is Ramchandra & another v. Hastimal Jain AIR 1956 Madhya Bharat 161. Shorn of all details the short facts in that case are these : There was a case under section 420, Indian Penal Code concerning some gold ornaments which were alleged to have been entrusted by the complainant Hastimal to accused Mohanlal but which he pledged with two other persons, namely, Ramchandra and Motilal. A similar case was also lodged against Mohanlal by one Chotelal. Both the cases were compounded and the ornaments were returned to Hastimal and Chotelal. A month later, the pledgees complained before the Magistrate that the properties had been pledged with them and it is from their possession that the ornaments had been seized by the Police and that without hearing them an order was passed for restoration of the properties from the complainant. In the circumstances, they prayed that the ornaments should be handed over to them. Their prayer having been rejected by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge, they came up in revision to the High Court where Justice Sanghi allowed the application and directed that the complainants Hastimal and Chotelal should restore the property delivered to them to the Magistrate at Indore who should thereafter deliver the Same to the two pledgees. On notice being issued to Hastimal and Chotelal, they pleaded their inability to produce the same. The Magistrate thereupon ordered that they should deposit in Court the price of the ornaments. Hastimal filed an objection stating that the price of ornaments can be settled only by the Civil Court and not by the Magistrate. This objection was upheld and the Magistrate directed the pledgees to seek relief in a Civil Court. This order was upheld by the Sessions Judge and it is the propriety and correctness thereof which was challenged in revision in the High Court. This objection was upheld and the Magistrate directed the pledgees to seek relief in a Civil Court. This order was upheld by the Sessions Judge and it is the propriety and correctness thereof which was challenged in revision in the High Court. The Court disagreed with the view held by the Allahabad High Court in Bishambhar Rai v. State through Mohan AIR 1953 Allahabad 199, and accepting the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Korupulu Appalanaidu & another v. Vakaramamurty & other AIR 1955 A.P. 45, held that a Court has got power to make an order under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code not only in respect of the property either in Court or in possession of the parties concerned, but also in respect of the money equivalent thereof when it is sold. They observed- "The difficulty however experienced by me in this case is that Sanghi J.'s order was silent as to what should be done if the ornaments were not produced in the Court. He could have passed an order for production of money equivalent of ornaments if they had become incapable of production. This he did not do." In the circumstances, he dismissed the revision petition. The result is, the view of the learned Judge that Sanghi, J could have passed an order for production of the money equivalent of ornaments if they had become incapable of production remained only an obiter. 6. Now under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, when a trial in a Criminal Court is concluded, the Court has power to make an order for disposal of any property produced before it or in its custody or regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which has been used for commission of an offence. The explanation to that section enlarges the meaning of the word "property" to include any other property into which the property in question may have been converted or exchanged or any other thing which has been acquired by such conversion or exchange. The explanation to that section enlarges the meaning of the word "property" to include any other property into which the property in question may have been converted or exchanged or any other thing which has been acquired by such conversion or exchange. On a strict construction of the explanation, it does not appear to have any reference or application to the money equivalent of the property in question unless it be the money in specie into which the property in question had been converted or for which it has been exchanged or unless the specified amount in custody of the Court had been acquired by such conversion or exchange. Even in Korupulu Appalanaidu & another v. Vakaramamurty & others AIR 1955 A.P. 45, on which considerable reliance is placed on behalf of the opposite parties, the learned Judge construed section 517, Criminal Procedure Code to mean that a Court has power to make an order under that section not only in respect of the property either in Court or in possession of the parties concerned, but the money equivalent thereof when it is sold. No other Court excepting the learned Judicial Commissioner in Shyamsundar & another v. Teja Singh AIR 1935 Peshawar 98, has gone to the extent of saying that in case the property is not produced, the Magistrate should proceed to ascertain the equivalent value of the property and direct the party concerned to deposit the same in Court. The Calcutta and Madhya Bharat High Courts in Nagendranath Singh & others v. Emperor AIR 1934 Cal. 454 and Ramchandra & another v. Hastimal Jain AIR 1956 Madhya Bharat 161 respectively left it to the Civil Court to determine the money equivalent of the property. 7. In the circumstances discussed above, I am unable to accept the contention of the opposite parties that in the facts and circumstances of the case it was open to the Magistrate to determine the price of the yoke and to direct the complainant to deposit the amount in Court. In my opinion, the Explanation to section 517, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be so construed as to include within its ambit the money equivalent of the property unless it be money in specie into which the property in question is converted or for which it has been exchanged. 8. In my opinion, the Explanation to section 517, Criminal Procedure Code cannot be so construed as to include within its ambit the money equivalent of the property unless it be money in specie into which the property in question is converted or for which it has been exchanged. 8. I would accordingly allow this application and set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It will be open to the opposite parties to approach the Civil Court for recovery of the price of the yoke. Final Result : Allowed