R. Munuswami vs State (C-1 Police) and Another

Nainar Sundaram, J.—The accused in C.C. No. 15177 of 1977 on the file of the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras is

the petitioner. He was acquitted of the offence under S. 380 I.P.C. and the revision in Pratap v. Munuswami and Another, Crl R.C. 1212 of 1979

preferred against the order of acquittal has been dismissed by me today.

The learned Magistrate, while passing the order of acquittal, has also passed orders under S. 452(1), Crl. P.C. with regard to the disposal of

the property involved, namely, M.O.I series. He has directed the return of M.O. 1 series to P. W. 1. As against the said order, the accused

preferred Crl. App. No. 372 of 1979 before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Madras Division, and the lower appellate Court found no

justification for interference and the appeal has been dismissed confirming the order regarding the disposal of M.O.I series passed by the first

Court. The present revision is directed against the judgment of the lower appellate Court.

There is no doubt that the normal rule is that the property should be restored to the person from whom it was seized. Even if there is a doubt as

to the title to the property, the subject-matter in the case, It should be returned to the person from whom it was seized. Of course, this should not

be resorted to, if there are special circumstanced which prima facie indicate title and right to possession in another. This principle has been

recognized by Curgenven, J. in K. Srinivasa Moorthi Vs. Narasimhalu Naidu,

In the present case, there is no dispute that M.O. 1 series were recovered'' from the custody of the accused. His version is that D.W.3, his

brother, handed over M. O.I, series to him. The prosecution version with regard to the commission of the theft alleged against the. accused has

been disbelieved by the first Court and that finding has found acceptance by this Court in Pratap v. Munswami and Another Crl. R.C. 1215 of

1979 In the said circumstances, it is not proper to fall back upon the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and that M.O.I series must at some point of time

have remained in the custody of P.W.I.

It is equally well-settled that the order for delivery of property to any person, which the court makes under the provisions of S. 452(1) Crl. P.C.

is based only on the immediate right to possession and does not and could not conclude the right or title of any person to the ownership of the

property concerned. It is always open to the real owner to set the appropriate law in motion to establish his title to the property and recover it, if

such a contingency exists, from the person in whose custody the property stands delivered. The orders passed under the Crl. P.C. no not conclude

rights or title to the property. The provisions of the Crl. P.C. merely enable the court to pass orders of disposal of property in a summary manner.

They do not affect the jurisdiction of the civil courts to adjudicate upon the right and title to such property.

There is ambiguity with reference to the claims put forth by both P.W.I and the accused. But yet, applying the normal rule that the property

involved in the criminal case should be restored to the custody of the person from whom it was obtained, I find that M.O. I series should be

delivered to the custody of the accused, of course, subject to the adjudication of the rights with regard to ownership by a court of competent

jurisdiction in this behalf.

Hence, I find warrant and justification for interference with the orders passed by the first court as well as the appellate court with references to

the disposal of M. O. I series. Accordingly, I set aside the said orders passed by the two courts below and I direct that M. O. I series be handed

over to the custody of the accused, the petitioner in this revision. In this view, this criminal revision case is allowed.