V. V. BEDARKAR, J. ( 1 ) THE present petitioner has filed this petition Forgetting the muddamal. It is the case of the petitioner that original accused Kacharaji Nanaji Thakore deceived him and took away some gold ornaments for which Kacharaji was prosecuted. He admitted the offence and therefore he was convicted but the question about inquire pertaining to the muddamal was postponed. It was the case that said accused Kacharaji sold the articles one Gandalal Girdharlal of Mansa and the Police recovered some muddamal on 20-2-1976. ( 2 ) OUTING the inquiry the learned Magistrate ordered that the muddamal should be handed-over to Gandalal Girdharlal of his heirs (because subsequently said Gandalal died) of Mansa. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal no. 63 of 1980 before the Additional Sessions Judge Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol. The learned Additional Session Judge was pleased to dismiss the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has come to this Court by way of this revision petition. ( 3 ) NOW it should be noted that the case of the petitioner-complainant was that his ornaments were stolen and those ornaments were one locked one Boremala two bangles one golden ri-ng called Ghodo another gold ring and two silver anklets. In fact this incident is alleged to have taken place prior to 16-1-1975 as the complaint was lodged on 16 The muddamal was attached from Gandalal on 20-2-1976 by the police. The ornaments were not in that very condition but melted gold ingot was attached. ( 4 ) THE learned Magistrate who made inquiry on considering the various aspects came to the conclusion that the articles attached by the police from Gandalal were not stolen articles but an equivalent of gold. He also found that the stolen gold articles were of about 6 to 7 tolls while the muddamal gold ingot attached was grams 170. 900 mg. and therefore it cannot be the muddamal or the stolen articles. The learned Sessions Judge also came to the same conclusion. ( 5 ) MR. N. N. Prajapati learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before me that this was the gold obtained by Gandalal by melting his ornaments and therefore according to him as per the provisions of sec. and therefore it cannot be the muddamal or the stolen articles. The learned Sessions Judge also came to the same conclusion. ( 5 ) MR. N. N. Prajapati learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted before me that this was the gold obtained by Gandalal by melting his ornaments and therefore according to him as per the provisions of sec. 452 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 there in after referred to as the Code) gold ingots can be considered to be the stolen property. ( 6 ) SECTION 452 (5) of the Code reads as under:"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 convconverted or exchanged and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange whether immediately or otherwise"it was therefore the submission that when these gold ornaments were converted into an ingot and the police attached that ingot the petitioner can have a claim on it. ( 7 ) IN order to support his argument Mr. Prajapati relied on the decision of the Madras High Court in Govindachari v. State 1979 Criminal Law Journal 428 decided by Paul J. In that case it was clear that the stolen articles were sold to Atma Rao and Atma Rao himself in his statement under sec. 161 (3) of the Code admitted that he had purchased two-row gold chain and the silver anklet from the accused and converted them into agoutis. The statement of Atmaram showed that he obtained the jewels from the thief and as such he could have acquired no title to the same. According to Atma Rao the ingots were made from the jewels after melting them. In the instant case the finding is not the same but because the police went to Gandalal. Gandalal whose heirs are given the property gave the like quantity of gold in the form of ingot. ( 8 ) IT is the submission of Mr. Prajapati that in the instant case also statement of deceased Gandalal recorded by the police clearly shows that he had produced the gold ingot from the muddamal gold ornaments given to him by the accused. ( 8 ) IT is the submission of Mr. Prajapati that in the instant case also statement of deceased Gandalal recorded by the police clearly shows that he had produced the gold ingot from the muddamal gold ornaments given to him by the accused. Actually in the statement following aspects are written: now this statement does not clearly show that same gold was given by Gandalal. Further the case of the petitioner gets a jolt from the deposition of Laxmansingh Ramji Nakum Police Sub-Inspector during the inquiry for the muddamal. Therein he has very categorically stated that in fact theft of 6 to 7 tolls of gold of the complainant was committed. He also further stated that the goldsmith melted his own ornaments and gave the muddamal ingot. He could not say whether the goldsmith had melted three necklaces and one Magmal (another type of necklace ). This evidence also clearly shows that the gold ingot obtained by the P. S. I. was to from the articles stolen by the accused from the petitioner as was the case in Govindachari (Supra ). ( 9 ) I had an occasion to consider a similar case in Criminal Revision Application no. 592 of 1980 decided on 16/02/1981 Of course in that case ingot was prepared from the ornaments and that ingot was sold to Mint and money were realised and therefore claim was made over the money. in that case I had considered the judgment of this Court in Kanchanlal Chokshi v. State of Gujarat (1963) (2) Criminal Law Journal 262 G. L. R. 102. In that case the stolen property was sold by the accused to J who in turn sold it to K and K along with some of his other property sold the 6aid stolen property and received a lump sum for the same. The value of the stolen property was Rs. 151-4-0 pies (i. e. Rs. 151. 25 paise the present money equivalent) which was attached from K. That amount was ordered by the learned Magistrate to be paid to the complainant The said order was set aside by this Court holding that the Magistrate was not entitled to order that sum to be paid to the complainant as it was not the specific money which K had received. That judgment was on consideration of sec. That judgment was on consideration of sec. 517 of the old Code of Criminal Procedure which is identical to sub-section (5) of sec. 452 of the Code (i. e. the present Code) and it was specifically observed that that section had no relevance or application to the money equivalent to the property unless it be the specific money into which the stolen property had been converted or for which it had been exchanged over unless money had been acquired by such conversion or exchange. So if the Police would have attached the money from opponent no. 1 (of that case) which he had obtained by sale of ingots of gold which he received from the Mint after melting the ornaments then it could have been said that they were the money which were exchanged for stolen articles. The instant case is still worse. In this case the ornaments are not in existence. They were already melted and police in order to have equivalent of those ornaments got the ingot of gold of the same value or weight from present opponent no. 2s deceased father. Therefore by no stretch of imagination it can be said that this muddamal is covered by sub-section (5) of sec. 452 of the Code so as to be available to the petitioner-complainant. ( 10 ) IN Anant 19 Criminal Law Journal 721 a gold Sari (an ornament of neck) of the complainant was stolen. The accused converted it into bangles and sold them to the petitioner (in that case) for Rs. 184 The said petitioner converted the bangles into gold and sold the same in different parts. In the court of investigation the said petitioner was asked to produce Rs. 184-4-0 and the trial Magistrate passed an order directing that sum to be paid over to the complainant. The High Court set aside that order observing that the money deposited by the said petitioner not being either the actual sum paid by the petitioner to the thief as the price of gold bangles or the actual sum realised by the petitioner by the sale of gold it was not the property in respect of which an offence had been committed within the remaining of sec. 517 of the Code and therefore the order of the trial Magistrate was held to be illegal. 517 of the Code and therefore the order of the trial Magistrate was held to be illegal. ( 11 ) IT is true that so far as the present case is concerned police have attached the gold ingot. But that was done after more than one year and by no stretch of imagination it can he said that this was the gold of the ornaments taken from the thief and which were melted. So unless a direct link is established between the article seized and the stolen article the original complainant cannot have any claim over it. ( 12 ) THUS there is no merit in the petition. If at all the petitioner has any scope he can file a civil suit against the heirs of deceased Gandalal to recover the amount of stolen articles received by deceased Gandalal which were the articles of the petitioner. ( 13 ) IN view of the observations made above I do not find any substance in this petition and the same is dismissed confirming the order of the Courts below. Stay to continue upto 16-6-1982. Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. .