The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has discretion to determine the person best entitled to possession of property under S. 452 of the Cr.P.C., even if the accused has been acquitted, and that each case must be decided on its own merits.

The propriety of the order for disposal of property passed by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Kottarakkara under S. 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after conclusion of trial in CC 53/83 and the confirmation of the same in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Quilon are matters to be considered in these two revision petitions.

2. M.Os. 1 to 3 are gold ornaments. P.W. 6 claimed them. M.Os. 4 to 24 are household utensils. They were claimed by the accused. The complainant in that case was P.W. 2. She claimed all the items. The accused was acquitted. But the Magistrate directed all the items to be given to P.W. 2. Against the disposal of M.Os. 1 to 3, P.W. 6 filed Cri. R.P. 541 of 1984 and the order of disposal of M.Os. 4 to 24 was challenged by the accused in Cri. R.P. 536 of 1984.

3. P.W. 2, the complainant is the wife of the accused. PW. 1 is father of PW. 2. Accused married P.W. 2 on 18-3-1981. The case of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is that at the time of marriage 24 sovereigns of ornaments including M.Os. 1 to 3 were given by P.W. 1 to P.W. 2 and they were entrusted with the accused. M.Os. 4 to 24 are said to be among the items received by P.W. 2 either as presents or from her house at the time of marriage. They were also alleged to have been entrusted to the accused. The complainant was taken for delivery to her house. It is said that at that time she carried the ornaments also. But subsequently, she returned to the house of the accused and took back the ornaments along with her. They were alleged to have been entrusted to the accused again. Thereafter, on account of estrangement P.W. 2 had to leave the residence of the accused on 28-3-1982. It is her case that she was able to take her thali alone and other items including M.Os. 1 to 24 were with the accused and he misappropriated them. It was on this allegation that she filed a criminal complaint against the accused for an offence punishable under S. 406 of I.P.C. The accused was acquitted on the finding that the evidence has not established his guilt.

4. Before the Sessions Judge, Quilon P.W. 6 challenged the disposal of M.Os. 1 to 3 in Crl. A. 9 of 1984 and the accused challenged disposal of M.Os. 4 to 24 in Cri. A. 4 of 1984. Both the appeals were dismissed.

5. S. 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure corresponds to old Ss. 517 and 518. The proceedings for disposal of property on conclusion of trial is in the nature of quasi-civil proceedings where the question to be considered is only who is best entitled to possession. The purpose of the proceedings is only disposal of property on conclusion of trial. During the enquiry or trial, many items of property may come to the custody of the court. They may be items regarding which offences were committed or which were used for the commission of offences. So also, other items of properties may come to the possession of the court. Questions of title are not matters to be gone into in an enquiry regarding disposal of property. Question of possession and right to possession alone will be considered in the usual course. Ownership and title may be matters for decision by competent civil courts in cases of dispute. An order under S. 452 will never stand in the way of such decision by a competent civil court. In fact a decision under S. 452 will only be subject to such a decision by a competent civil court.

6. The normal rule is that when no offence is proved to have been committed regarding the property or when it is not proved to have been used for commission of offence, the person who produced the articles or from whom the articles were seized will be preferred for restoring possession. It is not necessary that this should be a rule of invariable application. There may be special circumstances brought out in evidence to deviate from this rule. In such cases, the main question to be considered will be as to who is best entitled to possession. It cannot be held as a uniform rule that the person who produced the articles or from whom th