The power of the criminal court under Section 452 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to make an order for the disposal of property at the conclusion of the trial is summary in nature and does not adjudicate upon the civil rights of the parties.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition by the accused persons against the judgment of the Sessions judge, Guna, dated 20-1-88 passed in Criminal. Appeal No. 65 of 1987 , confirming the judgment of the sessions judge Guna dated 20-1-88 passed in criminal appeal no 65 of 1987. confirming the judgment of the chief judicial Magistrate, Guna, dated 23-7-1987 passed in Criminal Case No. 1375 of 1984 whereby the property which was the subject matter of the alleged theft, has been ordered to be delivered to the complainant-respondent No. 2 Samundersingh.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this revision petition briefly stated are as follow:-ON a first information report lodge by the complainant on 15-5-85 at P. S. Fatehgarh alleging theft committed in his house, in the night between 12th and 13/05/1985, in which two items of gold ornaments, a few items of silver ornaments and cash amount of Rs. 20,000/- approximately were removed by the offenders, the police registered crime No. 49/84 and the investigating officer arrested two accused persons Jaswantsingh and Kamarlal, who are the petitioners in this petition.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, the police recovered the ornaments and the cash amount from the possession of the accused persons pursuant to memorandum of statement under S. 27 of the Evidence Act. The complainant even before filing of the challan made an application under S. 452 of the Coad of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna, on 22-6-84 for delivering the seized property under supradginama of the complainant. After filing of the challan in Court the counsel for the accused persons was unable to make a clear statement whether or not the accused persons claimed the seized property vide order sheet dated 8-8-84 recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Subsequently, on 24-9-84 a reply on behalf of the accused persons was filed where in they claimed to be the owners of the property. As such, the property was not given to the complainant on supradginama.

( 4 ) AFTER trial of the criminal case against the accused persons, the Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the memorandum of statement under S. 27 of the Evidence Act and the seizure memo were not satisfactorily proved by the witnesses to the document and as such the connection of the accused persons with the stolen property could not be established resulting in the acquittal of the accused persons. As regard the disposal of the property the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found that the evidence did not show that the property belonged to the accused persons and that the complainant had specified in the first information report the properties which had been stolen from his house. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate held that the stolen property and the cash amount belonged to the complainant Samundersingh.

( 5 ) ON a criminal appeal (No. 85/87) under S. 454 Cr. P. C. having been filed by the accused person in the Court of Sessions Judge, Guna the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the judgement of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Guna, the accused persons have filed this revision petition.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners accused has submitted that the petitioners having been acquitted of the offence of theft, the property should have been delivered to them. He has cited three decisions having bearing on the question of disposal of property at the conclusion of the trial, which are being discussed hereunder.

( 7 ) THE first decision cited is in Pushkar Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1953 SC 508 : (1954 Cri LJ 153 ). In that case, the Magistrate had given a clear finding that no offence was committed in respect of the sum of Rs. 463/- and that it did not belong to the complainant. On such facts the supreme court restored the order of the magistrate holding that unless it was found that