The Magistrate cannot keep the property in his custody conditional on the institution of or pending a civil suit. The Magistrate cannot impose conditions on the person to whom the property is delivered. The property should be returned to the person from whom it was seized unless there are special circumstances.

( 1 ) SECTIONS 517 and 523 are mutually exclusive. Sec. 517 applies to a case where there has been an inquiry or trial which has been concluded, while Sec. 533 deals with property seized by the police under Sec. 51 or alleged or suspected to have been stolen or found under circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. When there has been an enquiry or trial, Sec. 523 cannot apply. There is nothing in the Code which enables the Magistrate to keep the property in his custody conditional on the institution of or pending a civil suit, or to impose conditions on a person to whom the property is delivered. In cases where Sec. 523 applies, the Magistrate may direct that if no person establishes his claim to such property or if the person in whose possession such property was found is unable to show that it was legally acquired by him, such property should be at the disposal of the State Government and may be sold under the orders of certain officers. But even so, it is only for the benefit of the true claimant because an order directing that the property be at the disposal of the Government is not tantamount to an order of confiscation. Normally the property should be returned to the persons from whose possession it was originally seized. 50 Mad. 916, 59 M. L. J. 901, 56 Mad. 654, II Weirs Criminal Rulings 667, A. I. R. 1924 Cal. 455, A. I. R. 1938 Cal. 17 considered. A. I. R. 1954 Mad. 214 differed from. Petition praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to issue an order directing return of M. Os. 4 to 6 in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1955 on the file of the Court of session, Krishna Division at Masulipatam (C. C. No. 219 of 1954 on the file of the court of the Additional 1st class Magistrate, Vijayawada.) m/s. O, Chinnappa Reddi and C. Padmanabha Reddi for the Petitioner. The Public Prosecutor (Mr. D. Munikannaiah) and K. Jagannadha Rao, for the Respondents. The Court made the following order. This is an application under Section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code impugning the correctness of an order passed under Section 517 of the same code by the Sessions Judge of Krishna in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 1955. There was a charge-sheet filed against the petitioner and another for an offence punishable under Section 420 I. P. C. Currency notes of the value of rs. 4,200/- were seized from them by the Sub Inspector of Police, Vijayawada on 26-6-1954. The prosecution case is that the accused pretended that they were, by some mysterious process, able to produce duplicates of any kind of currency notes given to them and that on that representation they received from P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 the currency notes in question. The accused were convicted by the trial Magistrate, who passed an order that the currency notes should be returned to those P. Ws. On appeal however, the learned sessions Judge held that on the material placed before the Court, it could not be said that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore acquitted the petitioner and his co-accused. But in doing so, he said that the order of the trial Magistrate that these currency notes should be returned to P. Ws. 1 to 3 should stand. He has however given no reasons in support of this direction. It is contended for the petitioner that where no offence has been proved to have been committed in respect of any property produced before the court and the accused is acquitted, the Magistrate should in the usual course direct restoration of the property to the person from whom it was seized. The discretion vested in the Magistrate by the section, it is urged, cannot be said to have been properly exercised when it is used in a case like the present, for returning the property to a person other than the party from whom it was taken. The mere fact that there are grounds for suspecting that the accused though acquitted must have obtained it from somebody else, do