JUDGMENT Gyanendra Kumar, J. - The facts of this case are quite interesting though simple. A horse belonging to Mahabir Singh, complainant, had been stolen from his house on the night intervening the 30th and 31st July, 1962. He lodged a first information report the very next day on 31-7-1962. In spite of strenuous search the horse could not be traced. More than a year and half later, viz., on 7-12-1963, the horse was found in possession of the accused. So the horse and the accused were brought to the Thana and the latter was challaned under Secs. 411 and 380, I. P. C. 2. The accused denied to have stolen the horse or even have the knowledge that it was stolen property. He, however, admitted the recovery of the horse from his possession. His case was that he had bona fide purchased it from the cattle market at Karauli. In support of the above plea the accused also examined four defence-witnesses. 3. Besides the testimony of the complainant and her witnesses the horse was put up for test identification. On the basis of the evidence on record and the test identification the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the horse really belonged to the complainant and was stolen from his house in July, 1962. The prosecution witness Shiv Narain Head Constable admitted that when the accused was brought to the Thana he stated that he had purchased the horse from the cattle market. The Investigating Officer had also recorded the statements of the defence witnesses who had all informed him that the accused had purchased the horse from the cattle market. In the result the Magistrate recorded the following finding in favour of the accused: - "The possibility of his being a bona fide purchaser cannot be ruled out and it cannot be said that he had taken the position as an after thought. He had taken it at the earliest opportunity and has even produced witnesses in support of his contention .... I as such hold that the accused when found in possession of the horse in question did not know or believe it to be stolen property. The result is that I do not find the accused guilty of the offence with which he has been charged. He is as such acquitted." 4. I as such hold that the accused when found in possession of the horse in question did not know or believe it to be stolen property. The result is that I do not find the accused guilty of the offence with which he has been charged. He is as such acquitted." 4. However, in view of the fact that the Magistrate found that the horse in question really belonged to Mahabir Singh complainant he ordered its delivery to him. The accused went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge but he rejected the same, hence this Revision by Ghafoor accused. 5. Whatever may be the position in a civil suit based on title, the position in a criminal court is entirely different. The Magistrate having found that the accused did not know or believe the horse to be a stolen property and that the possibility of his having bona fide purchased the same could not be ruled out, the possession of the horse by the accused would not be deemed to be unlawful and he would obviously be entitled to restoration of its possession under Sec. 517, Cr. P. C. A somewhat similar case had come up before the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Abdul Rahim v. State, A.I.R. 1956 Alld. 319. The facts of that case briefly were that Abdul Rahim was working as a Station Master at the relevant time and was prosecuted under Sec. 161, I. P. C. for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 600/- from Mahabir and Thagram. He was. however, acquitted by the Special Magistrate who tried the case. Thereupon Abdul Rahim applied for restoration of Rs. 600/- which had been taken away from him by the police. The Magistrate rejected the application and his appeal to the Sessions Judge was also dismissed. Abdul Rahim then came up to this Court in revision. At this stage it may be mentioned that the defence of Abdul Rahim was that the notes of Rs. 600/-, which were recovered from his possession, had been given to him by one Salik Ram in exchange of six notes of rupees one hundred each. It was observed by this Court: - "In the present case, it is not disputed that the currency notes were recovered from the possession of Abdul Rahim. 600/-, which were recovered from his possession, had been given to him by one Salik Ram in exchange of six notes of rupees one hundred each. It was observed by this Court: - "In the present case, it is not disputed that the currency notes were recovered from the possession of Abdul Rahim. It is further not denied that the charge against Abdul Rahim under Sec. 161, I. P. C. was held not proved. . .It is also true that...........the accused has examined himself and D. Ws. 3, 4 and 6. Since the prosecution evidence is vague and discrepant, there is no reason why the defence version should be rejected". 6. It was further observed by Kidwai, J. that when the accused was acquitted his possession of the notes must be deemed to be lawful. If he was in lawful possession of the notes the same would be restored to him. It was piped out that the plea of the accused was that he came into possession of the notes worth Rs. 600/- of smaller denomination in exchange of six notes of rupees one hundred each. This plea of the accused having not been disproved there was no justification for the magistrate to return the notes to the complainant, the normal rule being that the property had to be restored to the person from whose possession it was taken. Lastly it was remarked : - "The question that has to be determined under Sec. 517, Cr. P. C. is the question of possession and not of title. The courts below have directed themselves to a determination of the question of the ownership of the notes. This is not the function of a criminal court and therefore the approach of the courts below to this case was not proper". This court, therefore, directed that the currency notes of Rs. 600/- recovered from Abdul Rahim accused be delivered back to him. In the end it was pointed out: "It must be clearly understood that this order does not determine the question of ownership of the notes for Rs. 600/- which I have ordered to be delivered to Abdur Rahim. That is a matter for determination by a competent civil court". 7. In the end it was pointed out: "It must be clearly understood that this order does not determine the question of ownership of the notes for Rs. 600/- which I have ordered to be delivered to Abdur Rahim. That is a matter for determination by a competent civil court". 7. In the light of the above well known principles of criminal jurisprudence and the case cited above, I allow this revision, set aside the orders of the courts below and hold that the horse is deliverable to Ghafoor accused, if he is not already in possession thereof. This, however, does not take away the right of the complainant to obtain necessary relief from the civil court.