ORDER : N. Anand Venkatesh, J. 1. This petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking for return of the property. 2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant. On 17.12.2016, there was a house break and gold jewellery to the tune of 30 sovereigns was stolen from the house of the petitioner. Based on the complaint given by the petitioner, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No. 431 of 2016. During the course of investigation, certain bangles and gold ingot was recovered from the accused persons. 3. The case went for a trial in CC. No. 269 of 2017 and the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Vellore by judgment dated 04.02.2019 was pleased to acquit the accused persons. In the said judgment, the learned Magistrate had ordered that the case properties shall be disposed of in accordance with the orders passed by the Principal District Court, Vellore in criminal revision No. 35 of 2018. 4. Criminal Revision petition came up for hearing before the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore and the application was dismissed by order dated 27.04.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition has been filed before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court below went wrong in dismissing the application only on the ground that the case property produced by the police did not tally with the case property that was shown in the complaint. The learned counsel submitted that in cases of this nature, immediately after the theft, the golden jewels are converted into ingots and Section 452(5) of Cr.P.C. specifically deals with the term property and provides that it not only includes the property that was originally in possession, but also property into which it has been converted or exchanged at a later point of time. The learned counsel submitted that even though the complaint describes about 30 sovereigns of gold jewels, if the accused persons have converted the same into ingots, those golden ingots must be returned to the petitioner by virtue of the specific provisions contained in Section 452(5) of Cr.P.C. 6. The respondent police have filed a counter affidavit in this case. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder: "5. The respondent police have filed a counter affidavit in this case. The relevant portion of the counter affidavit is extracted hereunder: "5. It is submitted that on 24.12.2016, the then Inspector of Police arrested the accused persons A-1 to A-3 and recorded their confession statement as well as seized 5 sovereigns gold bangles, 10 sovereigns ingot in the presence of witnesses. Later, the accused and seized properties were produced before the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Vellore and sent to remand for judicial custody." 7. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police. 8. The Court below has completely lost sight of the scope of return of property as provided under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. Section 452 of Cr.P.C. deals with the manner in which an order should be passed for the disposal of the property at the conclusion of the trial. It will be relevant to extract Sub Section 5 of Section 452 Cr.P.C. which is as follows: "(5) In this section, the term "property" includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise." 9. In this case, it has been specifically admitted by the respondent police that based on the confession given by the accused persons, 5 sovereigns of gold bangles and 10 sovereigns of gold ingot was recovered and the same was produced before the Court and it was also marked as a material object before the Court, at the time of trial. 10. It is common knowledge that in cases of this nature, the golden ornaments that are stolen, are immediately converted into ingots. That is the reason why the legislature thought it fit to specifically provide under Section 452(5) of Cr.P.C. that a property not only includes its original form, but also its converted or exchanged form, at a later point of time. In cases of this nature, the gold remains intact and only its form has been changed. That by itself cannot be a ground to deprive the return of property to the lawful owner. 11. In cases of this nature, the gold remains intact and only its form has been changed. That by itself cannot be a ground to deprive the return of property to the lawful owner. 11. In view of the above, this Court finds that the orders passed by the Court below is unsustainable and accordingly the same is set aside. 12. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed with a direction to the Court below to return the entire property that was recovered by the respondent police viz., 5 sovereigns of gold bangles and 10 sovereigns of gold ingot to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.