A confession, inadmissible in a criminal trial, can be considered for determining the person best entitled to the possession of property in proceedings under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 1 ) NON-APPLICANT No. 1 Jagdish was convicted under Section 457 I. P. C. by the magistrate, 1st Class, Raipur, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. A gold bar and two gold rings (Article H) seized from him, vide Ex.-P. 17, were ordered to be restored to the complainant applicant under S. 517 of the code of Criminal Procedure. During the course of the investigation, the non-applicant had made a statement Exh. P. 16 in consequence of which the seized article 'h' was recovered by him. His statement as recorded in the memorandum exh. P. 16 was: ^^esus eksrhyky cstukfk ihjk okys dh pksjh dh gsa f'kon;ky] jkeyky] uugw] [kq[khukfk cq/kjke] brokjh vksj QStw ds lkfk esjs fglls esa dvk gqvk vk/kk dj/ku dk fgllk vk;k Fkka mls nqxkz lqukj ls xyok;k gs vksj xyus ls 2 NYys cu;k;k gwaa 2 NYys vksj ,d Mafm lksuk djhc 4 vaxqy yech vius ?kj ds lekus mls fnokyij ev~vh esa xmk;k gs fydky dj nsrk gwaa**

( 2 ) ON appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the ground that the property discovered was in no way connected with the theft and housebreaking in the house of the complainant. He also observed:

"i have very strong suspicion that the gold discovered from the houses of Sukhinath and Jagdish is out of the ornaments stolen from the complainant's house, but as there is no admissible evidence to convert my suspicion into proof, I have no alternative but to hold that offence against the appellants Sukhinath and Jagdish has not been established. "

But in regard to the disposal of the property, he ordered that it shall be returned to the accused-non-applicant No. 1.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant complainant contends that under the circumstances of the case, the direction regarding the restoration of the seized property to the non-applicant No. 1 was erroneous and that these being quasi civil proceedings, the admission that the seized property was the property of the complainant which had been stolen from his house, contained in Exh. P. 16, could validly be taken into consideration and in that event he would be the person best entitled to the possession of the property.

( 4 ) PROCEEDINGS under Section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under Chapter xliii are quasi civil proceedings which arise on the conclusion of the enquiry or trial in a criminal Court for the purpose of disposal of any property or document produced before it or in its custody or regarding which an offence appears to have been committed or which has been used for the commission of any offence. Ordinarily the object of the section is to provide a summary method for restoring the status quo (Rani Sona v. Rao Subhagsingh, 19 Nag LJ 264 (A) ). An order under the section only decides the question of possession and not that of ownership or title, which has to be decided by a civil Court.

( 5 ) ORDINARILY when no offence has been committed, in respect of any property in its custody, the Court should restore it to the person from whose possession it was seized. But in exceptional case, where circumstances so warrant and the evidence so indicate that it would be inequitable to restore it to the possession of the person from whom it was seized, the Court may in the proper exercise of its judicial discretion restore it to a person who in its opinion is the person best entitled to its possession. It was therefore held by Hemeon J. in Joharilal v. King-Emperor, ILR (1948) Nag 948: (AIR 1949 Nag 17) (B) that

"when an accused is given the benefit of doubt and acquitted of theft, it cannot be said that he was necessarily in lawful possession of the property which was the subject-matter of the theft and he is not, therefore, entitled to recover the property under Section 517, Criminal procedure Code. "

( 6 ) IN the instant case, even though the non-applicant has been acquitted, due to incomplete evidence, it would not be proper exercise of discretion to hand over the property back to the accused because the confession recorded