( 1 ) THIS is a revision application by one Kanchanlal Somalal Choksi aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kaira. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows :- - Some stolen property was alleged to have been sold by accused Rupabhai to one Jaswantlal who sold the same to one Kanchanlal the present petitioner. Kanchanlal sold that property along with some of his gold ornaments for cash. Before the Police he made a statement that he had sold the articles which he had received for Rs. 151-4-0 along with some other ornaments and he produced Rs. 151-4-0 before the Police. The learned trial Magistrate ordered this amount to be paid to the original complainant from whose possession the ornaments had been stolen. The petitioner then approached the Sessions Court but the Sessions Court declined to interfere. Hence this revision application

( 2 ) A preliminary objection is taken and it is contended that this revision application does not lie because the petitioner did not approach the trial Court but directly approached the sessions Court. Section 520 Criminal procedure code reads as follows :- -520 Stay of order under sec. 517 518 or 519 :- - Any Court of appeal confirmation reference or revision may direct any order under sec. 517 sec. 518 or sec. 5199 passed by a Court subordinate thereto to be stayed pending consideration by the former Court and may modify alter or annul such order and make any further orders that may be just.

( 3 ) THE expression Any Court of appeal has been interpreted to mean any Court to which an appeal ordinarily would lie. The section does not use the expression In appeal but merely provides that any Court of appeal can modify alter or annul an order passed by the trial Court. The section does not say that it shall do so in appeal; nor does it say that a person can appeal only if he has appeared at the trial Court. When the present petitioner approached the Sessions Court it can be taken that he appealed to the Sessions Court against the order of the trial Court. There is therefore no merit in the preliminary objection taken.

( 4 ) AS regards the order of disposal of Rs. 151-4-0 it is contended in revision that the trial Magistrate should not have done so because the properties stolen were ornaments and not cash. But the explanation to sec 517 (1) reads as follows :- -EXPLANATION :- - 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.

( 5 ) IT is true that in 20 Bom. L. R. 604 it has been held that the money could not be paid over to the complainant under the provisions of sec. . 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code since it merely represented the sum which the applicant paid to the accused as price of the gold bangles and it could not be treated under the explanation to the section as property with reference to which an offence had been committed. Reliance is however placed on A. I. R. 1935 Peshawar 98 Shamsundar and another v. Teja Singh A. I. R. 1927 Rangoon 322 Shwe Wa v. C. I. Mehta and another A. I. R. 1956 Madhya Bharat 161 Ramchandra and Another v. Nastimal Jain A. I. R. 1955 Andhra 45 Korupulu Appalanaidu and another v. Venkataramamurty and others and A. I. R. 1931 Calcutta 454 Nagendra Math Sinha and others v. Emperor. In the Madhya Bharat and Andhra cases the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bishambhar Rai v. State A. I. R. 1953 All. 189 was dissented from and it was held that a Court has power to make an order under sec. 517 Cr. P. C. not only in respect of the property in Court or in the possession of the parties concerned but also in respect of the money equivalent thereof when it is sold. In the Andh