Order.- The petitioner in this revision pecition was P.W.3 in C.C No 2242 of 1961 on the file of the Sub-Magistrate, Cochin. The case related to theft of four tins of Ramacham oil and the case was charged against 3 persons. The case was that P.W. 2 had kept the tins of oil in the godown of P.W.1, and theft was committed sometime in the night by effecting entry into the godown through the roof. The next day the tins were found intact, but the oil therefrom had been drained away in other tins brought by the thieves and after filling the tins of the godown with water, they had made good their escape with the oil. The case however, ended in acquittal. But the learned Sub-Magistrate directed the disbursement of the stolen oil to P.W.2. The matter finally came up before this Court, and here the direction of the Sub-Magistrate regarding the disposal of the stolen article was set aside and the matter was sent back for decision afresh after taking evidence. The learned Sub-Magistrate thereupon took evidence, and came to the same conclusion viz., that the articles should be disbursed to P.W. 2. Challenging the order, P.W. 3 preferred Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under section 520 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; to the District Magistrate who by order dated 16th March, 1968, set aside the direction of the Sub-Magistrate, and ordered the disbursement of the oil to P.W.3. From that order the further Criminal Miscellaneous Petition was preferred before the Sessions Judge and the learned Judge has set aside the order of the District Magistrate and directed the disbursement of the article to P.W. 2. The learned Sessions Judge’s order runs: “The order of the District Magistrate’s Court is set aside. The petitioner (P.W. 2) is entitled to retain the sale proceeds of the Ramacham oil.” P.W.3, therefore, has come up in revision. 2. At the very outset I must observe that the learned Sessions Judge has acted without jurisdiction. The order of the District Magistrate was one passed under section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and it is under the same section that the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned District Magistrate. This the learned Sessions Judge is not competent to do. The order of the District Magistrate was one passed under section 520 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and it is under the same section that the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned District Magistrate. This the learned Sessions Judge is not competent to do. Under section 520, the jurisdiction conferred on the District Magistrate and the Sessions Judge is concurrent and when once the applicant elects one or the other forum, the remedy is exhausted and no appeal or revision would lie against that order to the other forum under section 520. The jurisdiction of the other Court would cease, when once the matter is taken up by the Court of corresponding jurisdiction. The remedy against an order passed by such a Court will be by way of revision to the High Court, and not by way of an appeal as was done in the present instance to the other Court which also enjoys only the same powers as the Court which was moved in the matter first. 3. Now coming to the merits, I feel no hesitation to hold that the conclusion reached by the learned District Magistrate is the correct one in the circumtances of the case. P.W. 3 is the agent of a dealer at Kozhikode to whom the oil was sold by P.W. 8, and in the course of the investigation the article Was seized by the police from P.W. 3. Normal rule in a case of this nature is to return the article to the person from whose possession it was seized. “The law applicable to a case where the purchaser is concerned and the dispute is between the complainant and the purchaser and where the case has ended in a discharge, could be said to have been covered by the observations made by Jackson, J. in V.K. Vaiyapuri Chetty v. Sinniah Chetty1, alter noticing the decisions in regard to the discretion vested in the Court under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Judge observes: The general effect of these rulings is that the Magistrate has a discretion to decide the question of possession, but it is very rarely that that discretion if properly exercised will go beyond restoring the property to the party from whom it was taken. Later on we find the following: It may seem, therefore, that the simple rule should be that if no crime is made out the Magistrate should return the property to the party from whom it was taken.” And later on after referring to Srinivasamurthy v. Narasimhulu Naidu2it was observed: “It should be returned to the person from whom it was seized unless there are special circumstances which would render such a course unjustifiable. The mere fact that two parties are quarrelling about possession is not one of the special circumstances which take a case out of the general rule.”.... In the instant case, the articles were seized from P.W.7 who claimed the ownership thereof as the purchaser. The case of the complainant has been dismissed and the accused was discharged and the mere fact that the com- plainant and his witness said that they could recognise these jewels would not be enough even if the criminal Court is going into the matter of ownership to establish the ownership of the complainant. In such cases the proper procedure would be to adopt the normal course of returning the articles to the person from whom they were taken; P. Chandraiah v. Pamjwomi1." 4. So also in the case before me the article was sold to P.W.3 by P.W.8 and the dispute is between P.W.3 and P.W.2, the latter claiming himself to be a dealer in Ramacham oil had kept the oil in P.W.1’s godown. Absolutely no evidence was placed before Court by P.W.2 to substantiate his claim either that he is a dealer in Ramacham oil, or that the oil was kept by him in the godown of P.W.1. P.W.1, the owner of the godown was himself not sure whether the oil in question was kept by P.W.2 in his godown. P.W.1 however, stated that P.W.2 had at times kept such articles in his godown. Learned Counsel appearing for P.W.2 stated before me that P.W.2 is a manufacturer and dealer of Ramacham oil. But he could not produce any records to substantiate that. P.W.2 stated in the Court below (before the Sub-Magistrate) that he maintains accounts, but no accounts were produced. P.W.3 on the other hand, was able to substantiate his case by good evidence. Learned Counsel appearing for P.W.2 stated before me that P.W.2 is a manufacturer and dealer of Ramacham oil. But he could not produce any records to substantiate that. P.W.2 stated in the Court below (before the Sub-Magistrate) that he maintains accounts, but no accounts were produced. P.W.3 on the other hand, was able to substantiate his case by good evidence. Along with the oil, the accounts maintained by P.W.3, were also seized by the police, and those accounts disclosed the fact that the oil in question was purchased by him from P.W.8. The genuineness of the accounts was challenged by the learned Counsel on the ground that the accounts do not reveal that they are accounts maintained by P.W.3. This argument loses its weight when the fact is remembered that these accounts were seized from P.W.3’s shop by the police along with the oil. The contention, therefore, that the accounts were cooked up for the purpose of this case, cannot stand. When once it is proved that the article was purchased by the claimant bona fide the matter must normally and there, so far as criminal Court is concerned, the article should be released to the purchaser from whose possession it was seized-Burn, J., of the Madras High Court held in Karuppannan v. Guruswami2, that; "When it was found (hat accused purchased the bulls honestly, held that the question whether they or other people were entitled to them should not be decided by the criminal Court but should be left to the civil Court." 5. In the present case, I do not see any special circumstance which would justify the return of the article to a person other than the one from whose possession they were seized. The remedy open to the aggrieved party is to sue for declaration in the civil Court that he is the owner of the articles and he is entitled to its possession. 6. The result is that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is set aside, and that of the learned District Magistrate is restored. The sale proceeds of the oil will be disbursed to P.W.3 (petitioner) in Crl.M.P. 1775 of 1966 on the file of this Court. The revision is allowed. M.C.M. ----- Revision allowed.