JUDGMENT : Misra, J. - Padmacharan Patnaik filed a complaint u/s 379, Indian Penal Code against the accused persons for theft of 100 casuarina trees on 19-6-1961. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed that they had title to and possession in the trees. They, however, denied to have cut the trees. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on a finding that it was a civil dispute and the accused persons were exercising bonafide claim of right. The hundred logs of casuarina, alleged to have been cut from the disputed plot, were seized by the Police under the order of the Magistrate from near the Mausima Temple in Puri town and were kept in their custody. The learned Magistrate directed that the seized logs should be returned to the complainant as the accused did not claim any right in the same. Against this order directing delivery of the seized logs to the complainant, the accused filed a revision before the Sessions Judge, Puri, who has made the reference for setting aside the order of the Magistrate. 2. The dispute between the parties originated from the fact that the accused persons were original tenants of the disputed land. The complainant purchased the land from a purchaser in auction sale in execution of the decree against the accused persons. The plea of the accused has been that despite the decree and auction sale they are all through in possession of it and had grown the casuarina plants. The learned Magistrate clearly found that the trees were cut from the tope in question. He acquitted the accused as the prosecution could not establish possession beyond reasonable doubt and the possession of the accused was accepted as might be reasonably true. 3. The learned Magistrate recorded a clear finding that the accused persons got the trees cut and removed the same. On such a finding the logs of wood seized near the Mausima Temple must be taken as being seized from the custody of the accused. 4. Mr. Misra contended that when the accused persons denied that they had kept the logs near Mausima Temple, the logs should have been kept in the custody of the Court until determination of the dispute between the parties by a competent Civil Court to be returned to the successful party. The denial of the accused in this respect has not been accepted by the Court. The denial of the accused in this respect has not been accepted by the Court. It held that the accused had cut and removed the logs. It follows that they had kept the logs near Mausima Temple. Though in certain cases the course suggested by Mr. Misra is legally possible, in the facts and circumstances of this case it is not warranted. This is a simple case where the property was seized from the custody of the accused, and once an order of acquittal was recorded in their favour, the property must be returned to them. 5. Section 517(1), Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that when an inquiry or a trial in any Criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal by destruction, confiscation, or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise of any property 01' document produced before it or in its custody or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed, or which has been used for the commission of any offence. The object of the section is to enable the Court to direct the property to be given to the person to whom it belongs, or to allow it to continue in the possession of the person in whose possession it was found. Criminal Courts are not expected to try civil cases. The section merely purports to provide a summary method for having the status quo ante. An order under this section does not decide the question of ownership of the property but merely decides the right to possession and the ownership is to be determined in the Civil Court. 6. There is conflict of authority on the question as to when the Court is in doubt whether an order of restoration should be made or not and whether the claimant should be directed to work out civil remedies available to him. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not necessary to resolve the conflict. It would be sufficient to say that on the finding that the claim of the accused that they are in possession of the disputed trees might reasonably be true and that they had cut and removed the trees, the property should be restored to the accused. The complainant is to work out his remedies in the Civil Court. It would be sufficient to say that on the finding that the claim of the accused that they are in possession of the disputed trees might reasonably be true and that they had cut and removed the trees, the property should be restored to the accused. The complainant is to work out his remedies in the Civil Court. The learned Sessions Judge took the correct view. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the reference is accepted.