The court emphasized the discretion of the Magistrate to consider special circumstances and evidence to determine the rightful possession of stolen property, even upon the acquittal of the accused persons.

1. A trio, the petitioners who are P.Ws.17 to 19 in C. C. 857 of 1969 of the Sub Magistrate's Court, Parur preferred each of these petitions against the order of the Sub Magistrate directing the return of M.O.12, gold bangles and M.Os.14 and 15 series gold pieces to P. Ws.l and 29 on acquittal of the 3 accused persons in respect of offences under S.380, 457 and 461 of the Penal Code

2. The 3 accused persons were charged for the theft of M.Os.1 to 19 out of a box which was kept in a room of the house in which pws.1 and 29 lived on the night of 216 1967. The charges were laid against the accused persons on the strength of the first information furnished by pw.1. During the investigation, the accused persons were arrested on 16111967.On the basis of the information furnished by the accused persons, M.Os.1 to 19 were seized on 20-1-11967, M.O.12 bangles from pw.17 under Ex. P12 mahazar, M.0s.14 series from pw.18 under Ex. P13 mahazar and M.O.15 series from pw.19 under Ex. P19 mahazar. They admitted that the gold of which M.O.12 bangles were made as well as M.0s.14 and 15 were sold to them by the 1st accused in June, 1967. The 1st accused also admitted in his statement that he sold the identical gold pieces and some bangles to pws.17 to 19. But, the accused persons were finally acquitted of the charges as the trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution case had not been made out against them beyond a reasonable doubt. The acquittal order was on 3112 1968.

3. The trial Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence in the case and other circumstances felt that pws.1 and 29, the complainants in the case had established their possession over these articles and that they being in possession prior to the theft they would be entitled to get the movables returned to them and accordingly passed the order returning the identical movables to pws.1 and 29. It is against the order that these revision petitions are filed.

4. Ordinarily when no offence has been committed in respect of any property in the custody of the court it should restore the property to the person from whose possession it was seized. It is held in Emperor v. Dau Sitaram Balwant Singh, (AIR. 1948 Nagpur 249), that upon a conviction of an accused under S.379 IPC., the rightful owner and not the bona fide purchaser of property from accused, without knowledge of its being stolen, is entitled to its return. But, where no crime is made out, the Magistrate should return the property to the party from whom it was taken unless there are special circumstances which would render such course unjustifiable. That is the view expressed as early as in V.K. Vaiyapuri Chetti v. Sinniah Chetty (AIR. 1931 Madras 17).

5. So, there could be a deviation from the ordinary rule in cases where the special circumstances were against the person from whom the property had been seized. In Muthiah Muthirian v. Vairapermumal Muthirian (AIR. 1954 Madras 214), those special circumstances are pointed out. It reads as follows:

"But when there are circumstances showing that the culprit has not claimed the property as his specifically and when there are also no grounds to hold that the property could belong to him, and the question of ownership has not been gone into in the judgment and decided one way or the other and the discharge or acquittal is based upon inadequacy or doubtfulness of the proof offered, it would be unreasonable to return the stolen property to the accused person".

These principles are reiterated in State of Kerala v. Thiraviyam Panicker (1960 KLT 1051). Govinda Menon, J. has expressed the following opinion with regard to those special circumstances. It reads:

"In normal circumstances, on acquittal or discharge the property would be returned to the person from whom it was seized. But when there are circumstances showing that the person concerned either has not claimed the property as his specifically or when there are no grounds to hold that the property could belong to