( 1 ) HEARD Mr. Vipul A. Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant and Ms. Pandit, learned A. P. P. , for the Respondent No. 5. ( 2 ) THE applicant has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar dated 15th July, 2006 whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application to handover the valuable muddamal to the applicant. It is submitted that at the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge ought to have held that the muddamal narrated in paragraph No. 4 of the original application being Criminal Misc. Application No. 124 of 2006 made before the learned trial Court be handed over to the applicant-Champaben Ratilal Parmar for the following reasons; ( 3 ) SOME muddamal was handed over by way of interim-relief pending the trial. ( 4 ) THE very muddamal was restored to the custody of Nazar during the trial in compliance of the direction given by the Court, as reflected in the deposition of one of the witnesses examined, that is, daughter of the applicant-Champaben. No formal claim was made by any of the accused. ( 5 ) ACCUSED persons were held guilty and none of the parties including the accused persons had claimed the muddamal except the applicant, that is, original complainant. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the submissions made before the Court and the fact reflected in the application made by the applicant before the trial Court which came to be rejected by the learned trial Court, vis-a-vis the fact that the order of conviction has been challenged by the respondents-accused, the Court is of the view that the order of the learned trial Judge is erroneous and not sustainable in the eye of law. ( 7 ) THE reasons mentioned in earlier paragraph while narrating the submissions made by Mr. Vipul Shah, are good and sufficient to handover the muddamal to the applicant. Mere pendency of the appeal preferred under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the order of conviction would not oust the jurisdiction to pass orders as to disposal of the muddamal when there is no formal prohibitory orders are to be passed by the appellant Court. ( 8 ) MOSTLY after conclusion of the trial, the trial Court would pass the final order in three major parts. ( 8 ) MOSTLY after conclusion of the trial, the trial Court would pass the final order in three major parts. One part is capable of taking care of order of conviction or acquittal, as the case may be; second part is taking care about the quantum of punishment imposed including the amount of fine, if any alongwith the orders as to payment of compensation to the victim from the amount of fine collected or under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and third part is taking care about the disposal of the muddamal. In the present case by way of an interim arrangement the valuable muddamal prescribed in paragraph 4 of the main application was handed over to the complainant and the same was taken back by the Court at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the learned trial Judge is under obligation to pass the further final order as to disposal of the muddamal. At the conclusion of the trial, the final judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge and paragraph No. 7 indicates that valuable ornaments, wrist watches, etc. , be handed over to the complainant-Champaben Ratilal and cash recovered is ordered to be confiscated to the State Government. In the same way one article ? air gun is also ordered to be handed over to the District Armory. This order was not challenged by any party including the accused. The appeal under Section 374 read with Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a different scheme than the appeal contemplated under Section 354 of Cr. P. C. There is nothing in the order under challenge that any appeal was preferred under Section 354 of Cr. P. C. by any party nor it is reflected in the order that the High Court while admitting the appeal had stayed the entire judgment and order under challenge. In that fact situation, the learned trial Judge ought not to have held that the application is premature. ( 9 ) MR. MEHUL Sharad Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 has submitted that Court may pass any appropriate order, meaning thereby, there is no formal resistance from the respondents No. 1 and 4. Similar is the submission of Ms. ( 9 ) MR. MEHUL Sharad Shah, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 4 has submitted that Court may pass any appropriate order, meaning thereby, there is no formal resistance from the respondents No. 1 and 4. Similar is the submission of Ms. Pandit, learned A. P. P. ( 10 ) IT is relevant to note that original accused No. 2 and 3, that is, respondents No. 2 and 3 of the appeal though served have chosen not to appear so there is no formal objection from them. ( 11 ) AT last the totality takes this Court to a conclusion that present application requires to be and is accordingly allowed. The order passed below Exh. 1 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar in Criminal Misc. Application No. 124 of 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. The muddamal articles indicated in paragraph No. 4 of Criminal Misc. Application No. 124 of 2006 be refunded to the applicant-Champaben Ratilal Parmar. Rule is made absolute. Direct Service is permitted.