The propriety of the order for disposal of property passed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kottarakkara under S. 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after conclusion of trial in CC 53/83 and the confirmation of the same in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Quilon are matters to be considered in these two revision petitions.

2. M.Os. 1 to 3 are gold ornaments. P.W. 6 claimed them. M.Os. 4 to 24 are household utensils. They were claimed by the accused. The complainant in that case was P.W. 2. She claimed all the items. The accused was acquitted. But the Magistrate directed all the items to be given to P.W. 2. Against the disposal of M.Os. 1 to 3, P.W. 6 filed Cri. R.P. 541 of 1984 and the order of disposal of M.Os. 4 to 24 was challenged by the accused in Cri. R.P. 536 of 1984.

3. P.W. 2, the complainant is the wife of the accused. PW. 1 is father of PW. 2. Accused married P.W. 2 on 18-3-1981. The case of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is that at the time of marriage 24 sovereigns of ornaments including M.Os. 1 to 3 were given by P.W. 1 to P.W. 2 and they were entrusted with the accused. M.Os. 4 to 24 are said to be among the items received by P.W. 2 either as presents or from her hous