JUDGMENT (ORAL) Ashok Agarwal J. - The present appeal is filed under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to impugn an order of disposal of property passed on the 6th of November, 1985 by the learned Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa in Sessions Case No.4 of 1984. The appeal pertains to an order passed in respect of Article IS which is a gold stick weighing 66 Gms. The same is directed to be confiscated and auctioned and the sale proceeds are directed to be credited to the Government. 2. In the aforesaid Sessions Case No.4 of 1984 three accused were prosecuted for an offence under Section 395 and Section 395 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. By the judgment and order dated 16th of May, 1983 all the three accused were acquitted. It was observed that the order regarding disposal of property will be passed later on. On the 6th of November, 1985 an order regarding disposal or property was passed. The order pertains to several muddemal articles which included Article 15 which is the subject matter of the present appeal. 3. In so far as the aforesaid gold stick is concerned, it was the case of the prosecution that the accused No. 1, while in custody, had pointed out a shop of one Bhikamchand, a Goldsmith. According to the prosecution, accused No. 1 had sold the ornaments which were the subject matter of dacoity to Bhikamchand. When the police contacted Bhikamchand, he denied that accused No.1 had sold any ornaments to him. The police, thereafter took Bhikamchand and detained him at the police station. While he was in detention, the petitioner, who happens to be the brother-in-law of Bhikamchand, produced the aforesaid gold stick (Article 15). The same was seized under panchanama (Exhibit 15). As per the version of Bhikamchand when he denied the purchase of the ornaments the police brought him to Silvassa. He was kept in the lock-up at Silvassa for four to five days. His co-brother came to make enquiries and he was told that the ornaments have to be produced. He, therefore, went back and came with gold stick. According to Bhikamchand, his wife had four bangles and the Mangalsutra on her person. They were converted into gold and brought there. His co-brother came to make enquiries and he was told that the ornaments have to be produced. He, therefore, went back and came with gold stick. According to Bhikamchand, his wife had four bangles and the Mangalsutra on her person. They were converted into gold and brought there. When Bhikamchand had earlier come to the police station he had offered one gold ring and one gold chain from his person and one gold chain and one ring from the person of Bhikamchand. That was not accepted by the police as they weighed only 35 Gms., the police wanted 60 to 65 Gms. of gold. After the gold stick (Article 15) was delivered by the petitioner, Bhikamchand was released and allowed to go. At the trial, the above evidence did not find favour with the learned Judge of the trial Court. He found that no connection had been established between the gold-stick (Article 15) produced by the petitioner and the pointing out by accused No.1 to the shop of Bhikamchand. He has found that there was no discovery in respect of any article which was the subject matter of the dacoity. 4. In so far as impugned order of disposal of property is concerned, it is undisputed that the same was produced by the petitioner. The judgment and order of acquittal has found that the said gold stick has not been shown to be the subject matter of dacoity. If the said gold stick is produced by the petitioner and it is not held to be a property connected with the crime the same deserves to be returned to the petitioner. I see no justification why the same should be confiscated to the State. The petitioner is the rightful claimant and is, therefore, entitled to the delivery of the said gold stick (Article 15). 5. In the result, the order of dispose at of property dated 6th November, 1985 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, in Sessions Case No.4 of 1984, in so far as it relates to the gold stick (Article 15) weighing 66 Gms., is set aside. I direct that the same be delivered to the petitioner. Appeal is allowed. Expedite the issuance of certified copy. Appeal allowed.