Judgment Muneshwari Sahay, J. 1. This application is directed against an order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge VII, Patna, in Sessions Trial No.52/11 of 1969, rejecting the petitioners prayer for the return of some ornaments and cash which were stolen away from his house. The facts leading to this application are, shortly, these. 2. A dacolty was committed in the house of the petitioner on 11-11-1966 in which the dacoits are alleged to have looted away ornamonts and cash worth rs.19,000. In course of investigation, the police recovered some gold ornaments and Rs.1500 in cash from the house of accused Rameahwar Mahton and Soudagar Mahton. The petitioner alleged that the ornaments and cash recovered from the house of the aforesaid accused belonged to him and were stolen away in the dacoity. 3. The Sessions. trial, however, ended in the acquittal of the accused persons. A criminal revision petition No.2074 of 1970 was filed against the order or acquittal but the same was dismissed by this Court. In that revision application, this court had directed that the trial court would decide the question of ownership of the ornaments and cash which were recovered from the houses of Rameshwar and Soudagar. The then Assistant Sessions Judge VII, patna, by his order dated 11-1-74 held that the cash and ornaments belonged to rameshwar and Soudagar and that they should be returned to Mt. Jugeshwari devi widow of Rameshwar. Both Rameshwar and Soudagar are dead. Rameshwar, it may be mentioned, was the son of Soudagar. The petitioner moved this court against the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge dated 11-1-74 in Criminal Revision No.107 of 1974, but the same was dismissed on 22-1-74. 4. Thereafter the petitioner filed Title Suit No.36 of 1975 in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Biharsharif, for an adjudication that the articles mentioned in Schedule one of the plaint, viz. , the cash and ornaments in question, belonged to him. He also claimed for a permanent injunction restraining Mt. Jugeshwari Devi from taking delivery of the aforesaid cash and ornaments from the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge. Mst. Jugeshwari appeared in that suit but she did not contest it. The suit was, therefore, decreed ex parts on 11-3-77. On the authority of the ex parte decree, therefore, the petitioner applied before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge for the return of the ornaments and cash to him. Mst. Jugeshwari appeared in that suit but she did not contest it. The suit was, therefore, decreed ex parts on 11-3-77. On the authority of the ex parte decree, therefore, the petitioner applied before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge for the return of the ornaments and cash to him. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge in his. impugned order held that a decision had already been given with regard to the person who was entitled to the aforesaid cash and ornaments and that decision had been upheld even by this Court. Therefore, the petitioner could not be returned the cash and the ornaments which were returnable to Mst. Jugeshwari. 5. It is against this order that the petitioner has come up before this court, Mst. Jugeshwari has been impleaded as opposite party in this case as well but she has not appeared to contest the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to me a decision of the Allahabad High court in the case of State and another V/s. Jagannath Slnghal, (AIR 1962 allahabad 153) where it was held that the order passed by the Criminal Court under section 517 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old) does not settle or confer any rights or title. The matter can finally be decided only by a Civil court. This is what the court observed in that case :- "it is also well established that property by which or for which an offence has been committed has ultimately to go to its real owner and an order passed by a criminal court under section 517, Criminal procedure Code, does not settle any rights nor confers any title. It only empowers the Criminal Court to dispose of the property in a summary manner (see Ibrahim Rahamatullah V/s. Emperor, AIR 1947 nag.33 ). The matter can finally be decided only by a civil court. Even in cases where the criminal court does not pass any order with regard to a property with which or in respect of which an offence has been committed, the civil court of competent jurisdiction can pass a decree in respect of that property in favour of its real owner. " With utmost respect, I find myself in complete agreement with the view expressed in this case. " With utmost respect, I find myself in complete agreement with the view expressed in this case. The court below was in error in supposing that the dismissal of the criminal revision application filed by the petitioner before this court against the order of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in the sessions trial holding Mt. Jugeshwari to be entitled to the ornaments and cash stood in the petitioners way for claiming the cash and the ornaments on the basis of the decree passed in his favour in the title suit. In my opinion, the decree which was passed against mt. Jugeshwari and in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property in question must be given effect to. 6 In the result, therefore, the application is allowed and it is directed that the cash and the ornaments in question shall be returned to the petitioner. Application allowed.