ORDER : Kuldip Singh, J. - Special leave granted. 2. This appeal is by the complainant. The trial court convicted the respondents under Section 395 Indian Penal Code but the High Court reversed the findings of the trial court and acquitted them. The appellant is not challenging the acquittal of the respondents but he claims that the property, subject-matter of the dacoity, belongs to him and he prays that the same be returned to him. The High Court declined the request of the appellant for the return of the articles alleged to have been stolen at the time of the dacoity. We are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the High Court. We, however, make it clear that in case the appellant chooses to claim the articles by way of a regular suit, the findings of the High Court in the impugned judgment shall not come in his way in establishing the ownership of the disputed property. 3. The appeals are disposed of.