( 1 ) THIS Revision case arises out of a direction given by the learned magistrate in C. C. No. 18/83 that the boy Ameenuddin in the possession of p. W. 4 should be returned to A-2.

( 2 ) IN C. C. 18/83 two persons were chargesheeted for the offence of kidnapping a child from Smt. Rayeesa and they are acquitted of the said offence under Section 363 I. P. C. During investigation the police recovered the body from Naseeren Begum (A-2) and handed over to Rayeesa (P. W. 4) Consequent upon the acquittal the learned Magistrate directed P. W. 4 to handover the child to A-2.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel Sri C. Padmanabhareddy contended that whatever may be the outcome in C. C. 18/83 the direction given by the Magistrate to return the child is devoid of jurisdiction and beyond the purview of criminal Procedure Code. It is further contended that it is not competent tp jssue such a direction in view of the prder of the Civil Court dt 21-2-1983 in LA. 471/83 restraining the 2nd accused in the criminal case from taking possession of the child and it is also contended that confessional statement of a-2 before the police is admissible to the extent of exploring as to the mother of the child. Sri Trivikramarao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent while sustaining the acquittal by the Magistrate contended that the direction is consequent upon acquittal and when the offence of kidnapping is not proved the natural consequence is that the child should be handed over to a-2.

( 4 ) SECTION 452 to the extent relevant is as follows :"452 Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial. (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 com mission 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. "

( 5 ) IT is true there is no specific provision enabling the Magistrate for directing the return of the child as Section 452 Cr. P. C. is confined to the adjudication regarding custody of property or document.

( 6 ) APART from the issue regarding the impact of acquittal order on the direction given by the learned Magistrate for handing over the child by P. W. 4 to A-2, the learned counsel contended that the Civil Court in a suit filed at the instance of P. W. 4 passed an order dated 21-2-1983 restraining the 2nd respondent for the custody of the body of the child and the order by the criminal Court is always subject to Civil Suit. It is further contended that the confessional statement of A-1 can be pressed into service for passing an incidental order. In view of the subsistence of the order passed by the Civil court; rest raining A-2 from taking possession of the child, the order passed fey the criminal court does not have any binding force. Apart from this consideration it has to be seen whether the consequential order contemplated under s. 452 Cr. P. C. in part material with S. 517 of old Cr. P. C. can be pressed into service for passing an incidental order consequent upon the confessional statement of A-l. It may be recalled that A 1 in his confessional statement stated that with a view to accommodate A-2 who had a longing for a child, be kidnapped the child and though such confessional statement to the police cannot be passed into service for the purpose of conviction in the Criminal Court, but yet it can be taken into consid