(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 the Criminal Procedure Code. The same view was reiterated in Pohlu v. Emperor where it was pointed out that though there is a bar in S. 25 of the Evidence Act, or in S. 162 Criminal Procedure Code for being made use of as evidence against the accused, this state- ment could be made use of in an enquiry under S. 517 Criminal Procedure Code when determining the question of return of property. These two decisions have been followed by the Rajasthan High court in Dhanraj Baldeoldshan v. State and the Mysore High court in Veerabhadrappa v. Govinda . In the present case, the amount in question was seized from the accused in pur- suance .of statements made by them under S. 27 of the Evidence Act. The High court as well as the courts below have found the property to be the subject of theft and the acquittal of the accused is upon benefit of doubt. The accused persons disclaimed the stolen property and there a is no reason why the same should not be returned to the owner i.e. the complainant to whom it belongs.

(4) WE, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the impugned part of the order passed by the High court directing the forfeiture of amount of Rs 20,000.00 (Rupees twenty thousand) and instead direct that the same be returned to the appellant to whom the money belongs.

(5) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.