ORDER : K. Jayachandra Reddy, J. 1. The whole dispute involved in this case is whether Rs. 9300 recovered during the investigation of a theft case should be returned to the complainant or to the accused. The appellant before us is the accused. As we find from the impugned order, the stolen ornaments were recovered from the field of the appellant and the amount in question from underneath a heap of straw in the outer verandah of his house. 2. It appears in Criminal Revision No. 1925 of 1981, filed by the appellant the High Court observed that the theft was not proved and the accused merely accepted in his statement that the amount belonged to him. The High Court simply ordered that since the money was recovered from his house, it should be returned to him. However, the same learned Judge who has passed the impugned order has reviewed the earlier order and finally held that after appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case that if the money belonged to the appellant, he would not have kept in underneath the heap of straw in the outer verandah of his house. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that when once the accused is acquitted the money should automatically be returned to him. In this context, he relied on the judgment of this Court in N. Madhavan v. State of Kerala, 1979) 4 SCC 1 : (1980) 1 SCR 228 . In the same judgment, an observation is made (at SCR page 232: SCC p. 4) that departure from the said salutary rule of practice is not to be lightly made, when there is no dispute or doubt. The impugned order shows that there was a doubt and the disposal of the property was not lightly made. The learned counsel, however, submits that earlier orders should not have been reviewed since this is a criminal case. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the earlier orders were ex parte orders and, therefore, the complainant had no opportunity to canvass his case and ultimately in the interest of justice, the impugned order has been passed. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the earlier orders were ex parte orders and, therefore, the complainant had no opportunity to canvass his case and ultimately in the interest of justice, the impugned order has been passed. It is true that a criminal order is not reviewed, however, since the matter is before us, we have examined it, gone through the earlier orders of the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge and the impugned order and are satisfied that no interference is called for. 4. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.