JUDGMENT 1. - This order will dispose of all the three above numbered revision petitions, as they arise out of the same F.I.R. 2. Revision Petition No. 45/1988 has been filed by Bhanwar Singh and under challenge in the aforesaid revision is the judgment dated 27th October 1987 of the learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, against the acquittal of the accused non-petitioners Gopal, Bhanwar Lal S/o Ramchandra, Bhanwar Lal S/o Vishna and Kajod. The learned Sessions Judge under his judgment dated 27th October 1987 acquitted the above named accused non-petitioners of the charge u/s 403 I. P. C. and the conviction and sentence awarded to each of them was set aside. The learned Sessions Judge also disposed of the appeal No. 10/1986 filed by Babulal in respect of custody of the property. Against the aforesaid order. Babulal has filed a revision petition in this court registered as criminal revision petition No.289/ 1987. Revision petition 50/1988 has been filed by Mahant Raghunath Jat claiming himself to be a 'Mahant' of math Sakhana, village Sakhua, Police Station Mehand-was, District Tonk and has been filed against the order of the learned Appellate Court under which while dismissing the appeal of Kailash and the appeal of Babulal in respect of custody of the property, the learned Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. 3. The prosecution story is that a complaint was filed by Bhanwar Singh in the court of Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Tonk against the accused non-petitioners and others including one Kailash. As per the facts contained in the aforesaid complaint, the accused non-petitioners Gopal, Bhanwar Lal S/o Ram Chandra, Bhanwar Lal S/o Vishna & Kajod hatched a criminal conspiracy and as such the ornaments and other valuables of Math sankhna village Sakhua (sor short the'Math') were mortgaged with one Kanwarilal Bhanwari Lal and a criminal breach of trust was committed. In the complaint the details of the ornaments were also made and are contained in the judgment of the learned trial court as well as the Appellate Court. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the police station, where a case was registered and investigation was set in motion. During the investigation on the information of one Bhanwarlal S/o Ramchandra some property alleged to be of math'was recovered. Similarly on the information of the other accused persons, some other stolen property was recovered. The learned Magistrate sent the complaint u/s 156(3) Cr. P.C. to the police station, where a case was registered and investigation was set in motion. During the investigation on the information of one Bhanwarlal S/o Ramchandra some property alleged to be of math'was recovered. Similarly on the information of the other accused persons, some other stolen property was recovered. So far as one Kailash accused is concerned, he made more than one statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and one information was related to the piece of gold weighing 9 tola 7 anas and the said piece of gold was recovered from one B.L. Tikkiwal. Though the learned trial court had convicted the accused-non-petitioners also but the learned Appellate Court did not place reliance on the alleged recovery from the accused persons and acquitted them. The learned court has aid that even Mihant Raghunath in his statement before the court has not stated that the articles which were recovered from the accused non-petitioners belonged to Math. It can not be said that they were stolen property. The learned court has also stated that no stolen properties were recovered from the accused non-petitioners. I am of the opinion that so far as the accused non-petitioners is concerned, the view taken by the learned court cannot be said to be perverse and no interference is called for. 4. Coming to the other two revision petitions one No. 50/1988 filed by Mahand Raghunath and the other filed by Babulal No. 289/1987. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned court in setting aside the order of the learned Magistrate lost sight of the provisions contained in Sec. 457(5) Cr.P.C. He contends that under the aforesaid provision 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. There is no dispute on the material on record that the gold piece weighing about 9 tolas was converted after melting from golden ornaments in respect of which an offence is committed by Kailash. There is no dispute on the material on record that the gold piece weighing about 9 tolas was converted after melting from golden ornaments in respect of which an offence is committed by Kailash. Even if that property may be stolen property and merely because it had been converted into piece of gold, will not make any difference. 5. The question is as to whether the property can be said to be the property belonging to Babulal and other petitioners in criminal revision No. 287/1987 or not ? 6. A look at the order of the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Appellate Court will show that a categorical finding on the material on record has been recorded that the property had been entrusted to Kailash because the petitioner Raghunath was at that time minor, and that the property in dispute belongs to the Math. That finding on the material on record in my opinion is beyond challenge and more so in the present revision petition The learned Appellate Court while dealing with the appeal out of which criminal revision No. 287/1987 arises, has referred to the recovery memo under which the piece of gold weighing about 9 tolas was recovered. A look at the statement of Babulal will show that at one stage he has clearly mentioned that the property was recovered from him and had been given by the accused persons Bhanwarlal and Kailash. He also stated that he has melted six ornaments. He also admits that they were weighing about 9 tolas 7 masa of gold. No doubt in the cross examination he stated that the gold which was given by him to the police was not the same which was melted by him. At any rate it can be said from the statement of none else but one of the accused-petitioner namely Babulal that it was one accused Bhanwarlal and Kailash who had handed over the ornaments to him and he had melted them in the piece of geld which was weighing about 9 tolas. 7. Consequently. At any rate it can be said from the statement of none else but one of the accused-petitioner namely Babulal that it was one accused Bhanwarlal and Kailash who had handed over the ornaments to him and he had melted them in the piece of geld which was weighing about 9 tolas. 7. Consequently. I hereby dismiss the revision petition No. 45/1988 and 289/1987 and hereby allow the revision petition No. 50/1988, set aside the order of the learned Appellate Court so far as the delivery of property is concerned and restore that of the Magistrate if the petitioners Babulal and others so like they may establish their rights before the civil court and may obtain any stay order from the civil court. The property in dispute shall not be handed over to the Math for a period of one month from today.Revision Petition dismissed. *******