(1) SPECIAL leave granted. Arguments heard.

(2) IN the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that the direction made by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High court for the forfeiture of the amount of Rs. 20,000.00 (Rupees twenty thousand) to the State is wholly unwarranted. It is now accepted principle that the confessional part of the statement made by the accused leading to discovery within the meaning of S. 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 or S. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be made use of for purpose of and the disposal of property under Section 452 of the Code. There is a long line of decisions laying down the prin- ciple and we would refer to only a few of them.

(3) IN Queen Empress v. Tribhovan Manekchand a division bench of the Bombay High court laid down that the statement made to the police by the accused persons as to the ownership of property which was the subject matter of the proceedings against them although inadmissible as evidence against them at the trial for the offence with which they were charged, were admissible as evidence with regard to the ownership of the property in an enquiry held by th