JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J. - This is an appeal under Section 454 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in S.T. Case No. 21 of 1990 in respect of the seized property confiscating the same i.e. M.O.I to the State. 2. Prosecution case in short is that on the midnight of 09.05.1987, when Sadhu Mali with his family members were asleep in their house, about 12 to 13 persons in Police uniform entered, tied the inmates of the house and committed theft of gold ornaments worn by the ladies with cash and transistor radio etc. and then keeping the inmates confined in a room left the place. On 10.05.1987 around 2.00 AM, the matter being orally reported by Sadhu Mali at Govindapalli Police outpost, station diary entry to that effect was made and thereafter the same was treated as FIR and Mathili P.S. Case No. 25 of 1987 was instituted followed by investigation. On completion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against eleven accused persons. In the first round of trial in S.C. Case No. 20 of 1988, eight accused persons were acquitted and in the next rounds of trial in S.C. Case No. 23 of 1988 and 40 of 1988 in respect of other accused persons, the prosecution met the same fate. At last, accused Amarlal Ahuja faced the trial in S.T. Case No. 21 of 1990 and he has also been acquitted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. While recording the order of acquittal at the end with regard to the disposal of the property, order has been passed and M.O.-I being not claimed either by any of the prosecution witnesses or the accused persons, the same has been confiscated to the State. Thus order of confiscation is under challenge at the behest of the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that here in the case the appellant having been examined as P.W.3 has clearly staked his claim with respect to the said seized gold ornaments which was kept in a melted form by him at the time of seizure, having been purchased from accused Ramji who has already been acquitted. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that here in the case the appellant having been examined as P.W.3 has clearly staked his claim with respect to the said seized gold ornaments which was kept in a melted form by him at the time of seizure, having been purchased from accused Ramji who has already been acquitted. It is, therefore, his submission that the learned Additional Sessions Judge without taking the evidence of P.W.3 into consideration, has passed the order of confiscation of said M.O.I to the State, erroneously viewing that no claim was advanced by the appellant. Learned counsel for the State supports the order which has been passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in respect of confiscation of M.O.I to the State. 4. On the basis of rival submission, let's directly approach the evidence of P.W.3 to see as to what was his claim in respect of M.O.-I and how far it has been substantiated. The evidence of P.W.3 is very short and runs as under: I know accused Ramji but do not know the accused Amarlal. I purchased gold ornaments from accused Ramji for Rs. 6,500/-. This accused in the dock did not come with accused Ramji. It is pertinent to taken note that, M.O.-I is a piece of melted block of gold. P.W.4 is another witness to the seizure who has stated that the same was seized from the shop of P.W.-3, when police had been to the place. However, P.W.3 is not identifying this M.O.-I during trial to have been seized from his custody. He has also not breathed a word that having purchased the gold ornaments from the accused Ramji, he had melted it and forming a block, had kept it in further stating the M.O.-I to have been as that block which was seized by the police in course of investigation of the case. Thus the appellant is neither found to have duly claimed M.O.-I in specific terms nor he has established the required nexus. Under such circumstance, the evidence of P.W.4 as stated above do not come to the rescue of the appellant in establishing his rightful claim over M.O.-I for being restored to him. Thus this Court finds no such illegality in the impugned order of confiscation of M.O.-I to the State. 5. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Final Result : Disposed off