ORDER M.N. Shukla, J. - This is an appeal against the order of the learned Civil and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr dated 29-1-1966 whereby certain ornaments which were the property seized in a case u/s 395 IPC were after the decision of the case to be made over to the complainant. 2. The brief facts relevant for the decision of this appeal are that a dacoity was alleged to have been committed in the night between 29th and 30th July, 1962 at the house of one Bhukam Saran, resident of Siana district Bulandshahr. A report was lodged at police station Siana that very night at about 4 a.m. and no list of the looted property was given in the report itself. However, Bhukam Saran prepared a separate list of the looted property at about 5 a.m. and he delivered the same to the Investigating Officer who reached the spot at about 6 a.m. On 27-9-1963, Sri Jai Pal Singh, Station Officer of Police-Station Pahasu went to village Saleempur for the arrest of Ganga Saran in connection with the said dacoity. In the night between 27 and 28-9-1963 an attempt was made to arrest Ganga Saran and in the encounter Ganga Saran was killed at about 3.30 a.m. In the morning at about 9.30 a.m. the police party with some witnesses of the locality entered the house of Ganga Saran for taking search. At that time his wife, namely, Smt. Omwati the Appellant, was present and at her instance a portion of the floor of the room was dug. From there ornaments Exts. I to XIV were recovered. They were sealed on the spot and recovery memo was duly prepared. The recovered articles were put up for identification on 6-1-1964 and on 1-5-1964 and some of them were correctly identified; by the witnesses. After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against Smt. Omwati. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty. She admitted that the Ornaments Exts. I to XIV were recovered by the police from her house. She had stated that they were not recovered from the ground. According to her they were in a box and were taken away by the police when she was not inside the house. She claimed the ornaments as her own and stated that they were given to her at the time of her marriage. 4. She had stated that they were not recovered from the ground. According to her they were in a box and were taken away by the police when she was not inside the house. She claimed the ornaments as her own and stated that they were given to her at the time of her marriage. 4. After a consideration of the entire evidence in the case the learned Sessions Judge held that the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The finding was that the ornaments were recovered, as alleged by the prosecution, from under the ground but they might have been so hidden by Ganga Saran or his father after the dacoity and in the circumstances of the case knowledge of the concealment of the property alleged to have been looted in the dacoity could not be attributed to the Appellant. On that basis she was acquitted. 5. The other question, however, which still assumes importance was as to who should be held to be entitled to the custody of the ornaments after the conclusion of the trial. In this respect the approach of the learned Sessions Judge was that he directed that property which Smt. Khazano had correctly identified be delivered to her. Smt. Khazano was a maid servant of Bhukam Saran at whose house the dacoity had been committed. She alleged that she had kept these ornaments at the house of Bhukam Saran for safe custody. She claimed the property to belong to her and correctly identified the same. On this basis the learned Sessions Judge held that it was established that the ornaments belonged to Smt. Khazano and so directed the same to be returned to her. The remaining ornaments were however returned to the Appellant after the trial was over, as the identification with regard to the remaining property by the prosecution witnesses was not found satisfactory. 6. It has been contended before me that in view of the finding of acquittal recorded in the Appellant's favour the person entitled to the possession of the property with regard to which the offence had been committed would be the person from whose possession it was actually recovered. I am inclined to accept this submission of the Appellant. In my opinion the criminal court is not the appropriate forum for determining the ownership of the property. I am inclined to accept this submission of the Appellant. In my opinion the criminal court is not the appropriate forum for determining the ownership of the property. The intention of Section 517 Code of Criminal Procedure is to have the property delivered to a person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof. In the instant case both parties claimed possession of the property. The offence alleged to have been committed by the Appellant was not established and she was acquitted of the charge u/s 412 IPC. The ordinary rule which appears to be expedient in such cases is that the person from whose possession the property is recovered should be held entitled to claim possession thereof after the conclusion of the trial. In case any party is aggrieved by an order he is at liberty to establish his ownership by having recourse to the appropriate legal remedy. The question of title should not be gone into u/s 517 Code of Criminal Procedure after the trial is over. 7. Therefore, I allow this appeal, set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing the delivery of the ornaments Exts. I to VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI and XII to Smt. Khazano. The said property shall be delivered to the Appellant. The stay order dated 30th March, 1968 is discharged.