G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE accused Mohd. Kamaluddin was found guilty for an offence under Sec. 380 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to undergo R,i. for four months. M. Os. 1 to 27 were ordered to be returned to the complainant. Against that, an appeal was filed. The 1st Addl. Metropolitan sessions Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and the sentence passed against the accused and ordered the return of M. Os. to the accused. Against that, the State has filed Crl. Appeal No. 1185/87. The complainant filed Crl. R. C. No. 696/87 for the return of the amount that has been seized from the custody of the accused. The evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and the documentary evidence was considered by the Magistrate and he found that a case has been made out against the accused. The Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge gave different reasons and ultimately gave the benefit of doubt, mainly on the ground that there is access to the place where the money has been kept. The reasoning that has been given by the lower appellate court is not upto the mark, but it is not a perverse reasoning and unless it is perverse or unreasonable, it should not be interfered with.

( 2 ) IN the result, the Crl. Appeal no. 1185/87 is dismissed.

( 3 ) THE main controversy is about the return of the money. The accused claims that the money belongs to him and he took the money for the purchase of a press at Poona and that the money ought to have been returned to him consequent upon the acquittal. The claim that has been made by him is on the basis of a general rule. The general rule is that the property should ordinarily be delivered to the person by whom it has been produced and where it is produced by the police, it should be returned by the police to the person out of whose possession they have taken it. If there exists a benefit of doubt as to the ownership and a person other than the person from whose possession the property is taken, may claim for it and the Magistrate may consider about the return of the property. Sec. 452 Cr. P. C. reads as follows : " (1) When an inquiry or trial in any criminal court is concluded, the court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise, of any property or document produced before it or in its custody, or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. (2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without sureties, to the satisfaction of the court, engaging to restore such property to the court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision"

( 4 ) SRI Padmanabha Reddy contended that Ex. P-8 mediators report prepared by the police cannot be pressed into service for purpose of conviction in a criminal court, but yet it can be taken into consideration for the purpose of return of the articles after the conclusion of the trial. In support of his contention, he relied upon Pohlu V. Empror (1) AIR 1943 lah. 312. That cass relates to the recovery of 56 tolas of gold. With regard to that the sub inspector gave evidence supported by the other witnesses to the effect that the accused pointed to a spot where the stolen ornaments were burried in an earthen pot. Having held that this is a confession to a police officer and it is also a statement made during the course of investigation and this is barred by Sec. 25 of the Evidence Act for the purpose of proving the guilt against the accused, blacker, J. held as follows : "i see no reason for not admitting it and relying on fit. Similarly Sec. 162 criminal P. C. only bars the use of such a statement "at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the ti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document