1. The Additional District Magistrate, Mandsaur, on 16-5-1955 convicted and sentenced the accused Bhagwandas, non-applicant in this application, to three months rigorous imprisonment under Section 411 I. P. C. and also ordered that the five ornaments which Were recovered from this Bhagwandas should be given to complainant's brother Chunnilal, Bhagwandas filed an appeal against his conviction and the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, who heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that the ornaments which were recovered from Bhagwandas were his own. At last the court came to the conclusion that they did not belong to the complainant for there was a lot of difference between the weight that was given in the First Information Report and the actual weight of the ornaments. He also emphasised the point that the ornaments Were not identified before any Magistrate. He. therefore, set aside the conviction and the sentence Passed on the accused and acquitted him. But he did not pass any order about the property though the implication of the order of acquittal is that the property will go back to Bhagwandas.
2. The complainant has come in revision in this Court against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and Mr. L. N. Agrawal pressed for entertaining this revision setting aside the order so far as the ornaments are concerned. There is as I have said above, no order for returning the ornaments to Bhagwandas. And so there can be no order from this Court under Section 520 Criminal Procedure Code. The application id premature and must be rejected on this ground. Even if there be an order for returning the ornaments to Bhagwandas a revision will not lie here for the Supreme Court has clearly laid down in an appeal from the Court (Pushkar Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat : AIR1953SC508 ) that unless by due process of law the acquittal of the accused is changed into a conviction the order for returning of the ornaments in favour of the complainant will not be sustained under the clear provision of Section 517 Criminal Procedure Code. Before the order returning the ornament to Bnagwandas is set aside, it must be established that offence was committed in respect of these ornaments. And so long as the order of acquittal remains as it is, an order giving the ornaments to Bhagwandas the accused cannot be set aside. As yet there is no appeal against the acquittal and the question can be taken only when there is an appeal against the order of acquittal.
3. In this view of the matter, the revision will be dismissed. A copy of this order should, however, be sent to the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, so that, if an application is made to him he can pass suitable orders according to law regarding property.