BHATNAGAR, J.— Upon the complaint of petitioner Tara Chand, regarding the misappropriation of four golden Gokhroos (Bangles) case was registered against Ganesh Mal N.P. No. 2 and on challan being filed he was tried for the charge under S. 406 I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road. The learned Magistrate vide judgment dated December 4, 1984 held him guilty of the charge and sentenced him to one years R.I. under S. 406 I.P.C. It was ordered that the golden Kada recovered from accused Ganesh Mal may be given to complainant Tara Chand after the expiry of the period of appeal. Ganesh Mal preferred appeal in the court of Sessions Judge, Sirohi. The learned Judge vide judgment dated August 17,1988, allowed the appeal and acquitted Ganesh Mal of the charge. The order regarding the disposal of property was also reversed and it was ordered that the Kada may be returned to Ganesh Mal after the expiry of the period of revision/appeal. Tara Chand complainant feeling aggrieved by the order of the appellate Court regarding the disposal of the property, has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this court. (2). The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the learned Sessions Judge has, legally erred in deciding the question of title of the Kada in question and instead of directing the parties to get the question of title decided by a competent Civil Court, reversed the order of the Magistrate regarding the disposal of the property. (3). It has been vehemently stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite Ganesh Mal not filing of separate appeal against the order of the trial Court regarding the disposal of the property, the learned Judge reversed the order in that regard in the appeal challenging the judgement of conviction. Another ground of attack by Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that without establishing the claim of the property, Ganesh Mal has been given benefit by the appellate court and as such the appellate courts order so far as it relates to the disposal of the property is liable to be set aside. (4). The learned counsel for Ganesh Mal, N.P. No. 2 controverting these contentions argued that no separate appeal was required for setting aside the order regarding the disposal of the property. That, a prayer to that effect has been made in the appeal. (4). The learned counsel for Ganesh Mal, N.P. No. 2 controverting these contentions argued that no separate appeal was required for setting aside the order regarding the disposal of the property. That, a prayer to that effect has been made in the appeal. It has also been argued that the order of acquittal has become final and when Ganesh Mal has not been held guilty of any misappropriation of property, the learned Judge has rightly ordered for delivery of the property to Ganesh Mal from whose possession it was recovered. It has also been contended that there was no necessity of any decision of the Civil Court because there is a specific finding that the recovered kada has no connection with the Gokhroos said to have been pledged by Tara Chand with Ganesh Mal. Both the learned counsel placed reliance on certain authorities to substantiate their respective contentions, which I would presently discuss. (5). The allegation against Ganesh Mal was that on February 22, 1966 Tara Chand pledged with him four Gokhroos weighing 115 gms. for consideration of Rs. 1000/- taken as loan by him. That, out of that amount he paid Rs. 600/-. That, he offered the remaining amount and the interest and wanted Ganesh Mal to return his ornaments but Ganesh Mal avoided the matter for about two years and Tara Chand initiated criminal proceedings against him in the year 1976. During the course of investigation one golden Kada weighing 123 gms. and 313 ml. gms. was recovered from Ganesh Mal accused. The learned trial Judge was of the opinion that the Kada was got prepared by melting the Gokhroos. The appellate Court did not agree with that finding and held that in .view of the evidence pledging of any ornament by Tara Chand with Ganesh Mal was not proved, nor was there any connection between the Gokhroos and the Kada that is , there is no material to suggest that the kada was of the gold melted from the Gokhroos as claimed by Tara Chand complainant. The finding of the appellate Court regarding the prosecution case for the charge under S. 406 I.P.C. not being established against Ganesh Mal, has become final because the judgement of acquittal by the appellate court has not been challenged anywhere. The finding of the appellate Court regarding the prosecution case for the charge under S. 406 I.P.C. not being established against Ganesh Mal, has become final because the judgement of acquittal by the appellate court has not been challenged anywhere. The point about the requirement of separate appeal against the order of disposal of property was raised before the appellate court and the appellate court has discussed in detail the law on the point and has rightly arrived at the conclusion that no separate appeal was required. The memo of appeal shows that prayer was made for setting aside the order of the trial Court regarding the disposal of property also and for return of golden Kada to Ganesh Mal. (6). The question regarding the finality of judgment came for consideration before their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Amritlal Ratilal Mehta & another vs. State of Gujarat (1). In that case the charges were under ss. 477-A/34 and 420/34 I.P.C. The facts required to be established for both the offences were basically the same. The acquittal for the offence under S.477-A/34 having become final, their Lordships were pleased to hold that the reversal of acquittal for offence under s. 420/34 I.P.C. cannot stand. (7). Placing reliance on this authority, Mr. Singhi, learned counsel for non-petitioner No. 2 contended that the judgment of acquittal has become final and when Ganesh Mal has not been held guilty for the charge under S. 406, the property recovered has been rightly- ordered to be delivered to him by the learned Sessions Judge. (8). The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not challenging the order of acquittal but he is confining his arguments regarding the order of disposal of the property passed by the appellate Court. The contention of Mr. Joshi is that the order regarding the disposal of the property is challengeable even in cases where the accused are acquitted of the charges of theft or misappropriation of money. According to Mr. Joshi, in such cases the Court should direct the parties to get the question of title decided by a Civil Court. To substantiate his point, Mr. Joshi referred to the principle enunciated in the case of Malabar Cashewnuts and Allied Products Quilon and others vs. State of Kerala and ors. (2). According to Mr. Joshi, in such cases the Court should direct the parties to get the question of title decided by a Civil Court. To substantiate his point, Mr. Joshi referred to the principle enunciated in the case of Malabar Cashewnuts and Allied Products Quilon and others vs. State of Kerala and ors. (2). It was a case where the goods seized from the lorry driven by the accused were kept by the police under the orders of the Criminal Court and were released to the accused on his furnishing cash security in the Court. On acquittal the accused made an application for return of the security amount. A third person also made a similar application for return of the security amount to him on the ground that he was the owner of the goods and the security deposit was a benami deposit made by him in the name of the accused. The contention of the person making such an application was that as he was not a party to the case, the Criminal Court cannot decide the question of benami and therefore, the order of the Court under S.452 directing the third person to get a decision regarding his title to the goods and the deposit being benami from a Civil Court would be proper. (9). There was no decision regarding the ownership of the property and dispute regarding the title and therefore, the above referred authority is of no help to the petitioner. (10). Another authority relied on by Mr. Joshi is Jugal Kishore Vs. Babu Lal (3). In that case his Lordship discussed the provisions of Sec. 451 and S.452 and 457 and laid down the test for distinguishing the provisions of those sections. The facts of the case were that a scooter was found in possession of one Babu Lal and on checking it was found that there was no registration certificate and insurance certificate for the said scooter. The scooter also did not bear the front and the rear number plates. The scooter was seized under S. 129-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. The scooter also did not bear the front and the rear number plates. The scooter was seized under S. 129-A of the Motor Vehicle Act. Babu Lal was given interim custody of the said scooter by the order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class No.2, Jodhpur subject to the condition that he would not operate the same on the road and would produce the same whenever required to do so and would not transfer the same to any person. The charge sheet against Babu Lal was filed in the Court. The challan was dismissed on the ground that the period of limitation for filing the said challan as prescribed by S. 468 (2) (a) Cr. P.C. had expired. One Jugal Kishore, thereafter submitted an application under S. 457 Cr. P.C. to the effect that he was the owner of the scooter seized from the possession of Babu Lal and as such scooter may be delivered to him. Babu Lal opposed that application on the ground that by the interim order he was given possession of the scooter. The Court considered the rival claims. His Lordships while discussing the provisions of Ss. 451, 452 and 457 Cr. P.C. held that no assistance can be taken from the interim order passed by the Judicial Magistrate because the order was with regard to the interim custody of the scooter. It was also observed that interim order was challenged by filing the petition in the High Court under S. 482 Cr. P.C. which was dismissed in limine on the ground that the order made by the Magistrate did not involve the release of the scooter in favour of Babu Lal and scooter was still custodia legis. In those circumstances, the learned Judge remanded the matter back to the Judicial Magistrate for deciding the application submitted by the petitioner Chhagan Lal under S. 457 Cr. P.C. in accordance with law. (11). Placing reliance on those authorities Mr. Joshi, argued that as the Magistrate had already given the finding about the entitlement of Tara Chand of the golden Kada, the matter should have been sent back to him for further decision on the point or the parties should have been directed to approach the Civil Court for getting the question of title decided. (12). Joshi, argued that as the Magistrate had already given the finding about the entitlement of Tara Chand of the golden Kada, the matter should have been sent back to him for further decision on the point or the parties should have been directed to approach the Civil Court for getting the question of title decided. (12). In the facts and circumstances of the cases in both these authorities cited above, the Criminal Court had no occasion to decide the question of ownership. The present case stands on a different footing. Here one of the point for determination was whether the Kada had any connection with the Gokhroos. The appellate Court did not hold Ganesh Mal guilty for the charge under S. 406 I.P.C. When the very allegation of pledging the ornaments was found to be false, the learned Judge was not in error in reversing the order of the Magistrate regarding the disposal of the property. (13). Mr. Joshi, next referred to the case of Sulekh Chand vs. Suresh Chand and others (4). The accused in that case were tried for the offence under S. 411 I.P.C. Some of the items of the property were recovered from the house of the accused persons. They were convicted on the basis of identification of two items. The trial Court ordered for the return opf those two items to the complainant and relegating parties to go to Civil Court in respect of other items. In appeal, the High Court while setting aside the conviction, directed to return some items of property to the accused persons. The complainant was directed to file a suit. When the matter went before their Lordships of the Supreme Court it was held that in the interest of justice matter relating of disposal of two items could be relegated to Chief Judicial Magistrate before whom matter relting to disposal of other items was pending. (14). In the case on hand, there was only one item and for that the trial Court had passed an order which in appeal was set aside in view of the findings regarding the alleged crime by the accused. The Supreme Court decision does not help Mr. Joshi in his argument that in all such matters, the parties should be directed to get the point decided by a competent Civil Court. The Supreme Court decision does not help Mr. Joshi in his argument that in all such matters, the parties should be directed to get the point decided by a competent Civil Court. There may be cases where the Court, in view of the given circumstances of the case, is not in a position to arrive at a definite conclusion and may direct the parties to approach the Civil Courts for a verdict regarding the title of the property in dispute. The present case does not fall in that category. Here the learned Sessions Judge has given good reasons for his conclusion that the golden Kada recovered from the possession of Ganesh Mal cannot be said to be made out of any property belonging to Tara Chand. The learned Judge while discussing the point also referred to the fact that the weight of Gokhroos alleged to be pledged with Ganesh Mal was said to be 115 gms. Whereas the weight of the golden Kada was 123 gms. and 313 ml. gms. It is also to be noted that the very factor of pledging of any ornament by Tara Chand with Ganesh was disbelieved and therefore, there could not be even any remote connection of the Kada with any property of Tara Chand and as such the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. I am strengthened in my view by the principles enunciated in the case of Patel Keshavlal Venidas vs. Kacharaji Nanaji Thakore (5). In that case, the alleged stolen ornaments were already melted. Police recovered equivalent gold. In the absence of direct link between the articles seized and the stolen articles being established, the complainant was not held to have any claim over the recovered gold. (15). In view of the above discussion, the order of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the disposal of the property is justiciable. There was no necessity for the learned Sessions Judge to remand the case back to the trial Court or direct the parties to approach the Civil Court for getting the question of title decided. (16). Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.