JUDGMENT : N.K. Das, J. - Both the appeal and the revision arise out of the same judgment. The informant in the case is the Appellant in the Criminal Appeal and Petitioner in the Criminal Revision. The Respondent was charged u/s 380, Indian Penal Code but he was convicted by the trial Court u/s 406, Indian Penal Code and in the appellate Court his conviction was set aside. The trial Court had ordered that the gold ornaments seized were to be handed over to the informant who is the Appellant in the present appeal and Petitioner in the Criminal Revision. The appellate Court after acquitting the Respondent directed to hand over those gold ornaments to the Respondent. The Criminal Appeal and the Revision are directed against the decision of the appellate Court. 2. The order of acquittal of the Respondent is not challenged inasmuch as he could not have been convicted u/s 406, Indian Penal Code when he was charged for offence u/s 380, Indian Penal Code. This being the position of law, the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner rightly did not challenge the order of acquittal. The only point raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant-Petitioner is that the seized gold ornaments should not have been handed over to the Respondent while acquitting him and the appellate Court has not given any reason as to its satisfaction for directing to hand over the ornaments to the Respondent. 3. Section 452(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: When an inquiry or 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. This provision clearly states that the trial Court has to order for disposal or handing over the property to any person who claims to be entitled to possession thereof and the Court has to be satisfied to that effect. This provision clearly states that the trial Court has to order for disposal or handing over the property to any person who claims to be entitled to possession thereof and the Court has to be satisfied to that effect. It appears that this clear provision of law has not be n followed and for ends of justice it is necessary that an enquiry is to be made when the informant has put forward his claim to these gold ornaments. There are a number of decisions of this Court as to how the Court has to arrive at its own satisfaction for handing over the property to a particular claimant see the cases of Arjun Padhy and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Another Radhacharan Das and Anr. v. Padma Charan Patnaik and Anr. 33 (1967) C.L.T. 868 and Udit Chandra Nayak v. Labanidhar Naik 42 (1976) C.L.T. 49. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for both sides at length I am satisfied that this is a fit case where an enquiry has to be made by the trial Court for its satisfaction as to whom the gold ornaments are to be returned, if the ornaments are still in custody of the Court. 5. In the result, the appeal and the revision are allowed to the aforesaid extent. The trial Court is directed to hold a fresh enquiry, after giving opportunities to both the parties to adduce evidence, and come to a conclusion as to who is entitled to receive the ornaments, if the ornaments are still in custody of the Court or kept in zima of any other person by the Court. If the ornaments have already been handed over to the Respondent, then it is open to the Appellant Petitioner to take recourse to proper Court of law to establish his claim and get back the ornaments. It may be made clear that this direction is irrespective of the findings of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court inasmuch as I am directing for a fresh enquiry. Final Result : Allowed