A Court of appeal, confirmation, reference, or revision has the power to modify, alter, or annul orders passed under Sections 517, 518, and 519 of Cr. P. C., irrespective of whether an appeal has been preferred against the main order of conviction or acquittal.

This application in revision by Shri Kantna Mal is directed against an order of the learned sessions Judge Mahasu, Sirmur, Bilaspur and Kinnaur Sessions Division whereby the order made by a learned Magistrate First Class Mahasu directing that the ornaments recovered from the possession of respondent No. 2 the accused and the box in which the aforesaid pieces of ornaments were contained be returned to the petitioner was vacated and the aforesaid articles were ordered to be returned to respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 are uncle and nephew and lived in the same house in village Suni. The petitioner and his wife Smt. Reshmu lived in the upper storey and respondent No. 2 on the ground floor. The petitioner filed a complaint against respondent No. 2 for offences under Sections 454 and 380 of I. P. C. and briefly stated the petitioner's case was that a vessel containing 80 tolas of gold and 90 tolas of silver in the form of ornaments and 1500 silver rupee coins and a wooden box containing currency notes of the value of Rs. 8000/- were kept under ground in one of the rooms on the ground floor of the aforesaid house. That room was locked by the petitioner. Some time in May 1959, respondent No. 2 broke open the lock put to the aforesaid room and committed theft of the aforesaid articles.

3. During the course of investigation two gold bangles Ex. P-1, 3 gold rings Ex. P-2, one gold Chaua Ex. P-3, a portion of a gold necklace Ex. P-4 and one box containing the aforesaid ornaments Ex. P-5 were recovered from the possession of respondent No. 2. The defence put forward on behalf of respondent No. 2 was that the aforesaid articles belonged to him, that the room on the ground floor from which theft was alleged to have been committed was in his possession and that the allegation that gold and silver articles belonging to petitioner were kept under ground in the aforesaid room was incorrect.

4. The learned Trial Court rejected the prosecution case that the pieces of ornaments recovered from the possession of respondent No. 2 were stolen by him and recorded an order of acquittal. It, however, directed the pieces of ornaments recovered from the possession of respondent No. 2 to be returned to the petitioner. The relevant portion of the order of the learned Magistrate runs as below :

"As regards the ornaments recovered from the possession of the accused, I direct that these may be handed over together with the box in which they are contained, to Shri Kanthu Ram being the head of the family. Shri Jagdish Chandar himself says that these were entrusted to him, his words being "yih jaidad mere sapurd hui thi". As such, If he is considered as squandering the property it seems desirable that the head of the family should have custody of it."

5. Respondent No. 2 filed an application against the aforesaid order before the learned Sessions Judge and he reached the conclusion that as the aforesaid pieces of ornaments were admittedly recovered from the possession of respondent No. 2 who was acquitted of the offences with which he was charged the same were liable to be returned to him. In support of that conclusion the learned Sessions Judge relied upon a ruling of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1953 SC 508, Pushkar Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat. It has been held in the aforesaid case that if an accused charged with having committed theft is acquitted and If the article alleged to have been stolen by him are recovered from his possession and are found to belong to him the same should be restored to him. The aforesaid ruling is sought to be distinguished on behalf of the respondent (petitioner ?) and it has been contended that respondent No. 2 had in his statement under Section 342 of Cr. P. C. admitted that the aforesaid pieces of ornaments were entrusted to him and as such the learned Sessions Judge fell in error in directing that those pieces of ornaments be returned to respondent No. 2. The relevant portion of the statemen