JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - These two revisions arise out of the same judgment of the learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in appeal confiscating the property seized in G.R. Case No. 1482/82 to the State. The facts stated in short are that opposite party No. 2 in Criminal Revision No. 442/85 who is also the Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 337/85 lodged an F. I.R. on 8-6-1982 alleging theft of twenty pieces of laterite stones kept inside his Bari. After investigation chargesheet was submitted against the Petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 442/85 and another. During the trial, the case against one of the accused. Dharanidhar Giri was compounded between the informant and him, and after trial the other accused persons were acquitted and orders were passed by the trial Court for return of the seized property to the informant. An appeal carried by the two accused persons the Petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 422/85, against the direction of the Court for return of the property to the informant was allowed on 1-11-1983 with the Sessions Judge directing the property seized to be released in their favour. As against such order a revision was preferred before this Court, i.e. Criminal Revision No. 552/83, in which the order of the Sessions Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded to him for reconsideration. The appeal was transferred to the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge Cuttack who held on re-appreciation of the evidence that both the informant as well as the accused bad failed to establish the property in question to have been seized from their possession and hence directed the seized property to be confiscated to the State. The order of the appellate Court has been impugned in these revisions and hence both the revisions are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners in both the revisions has taken me through the evidence adduced in the case. So far as the informant is concerned, the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge is without exception since even the informant as P.W. 1 did not state in his evidence the seized stones as belonging to him. The two independent witnesses, P.Ws. So far as the informant is concerned, the conclusion of the learned Sessions Judge is without exception since even the informant as P.W. 1 did not state in his evidence the seized stones as belonging to him. The two independent witnesses, P.Ws. 3 and 4 also never said the stones as belonging to P.W. 1 and as a matter of fact P.W. 3 stated that he could not state to whom the stones belonged and P.W. 4 even though made a statement that the stones belonged to P.W. 1, yet it was proved by P.W. 7, the I. O. that be had stated before him of not being able to say to whom the stones belonged. The stones were admittedly seized from an open space in front of the house of Petitioner Hemanta Giri (Cri: Rev. 442/85). There is absolutely no statement in the evidence of P.W. 1 that the stones stolen from his Bari were the same seized during the investigation of the case and hence the identity of the stones as the same as that of these purported to be stolen from the backyard of P.W. 1 was never established. 3. So far as the accused Petitioners are concerned there is also not an iota of evidence that the stones belonged to them. It was urged by Mr. Sahoo, the learned Counsel appearing for them, that the stones were seized from an open space in front of the house of these accused Petitioners and therefore it should be inferred that the stones belonged to them. There is no invariable conclusion that the stones stacked in an open space in front of the house of these accused Petitioners necessarily belonged to them. During the trial no evidence was led by them of then being owners of the stones, The stones were also not seized from their custody. Their acquittal of the offence only means of they having not committed theft of the stones from the house of P.W. 1. but that does not mean that the, stones seized also belonged to them. So far as an order u/s 452. Code of Criminal Procedure. Their acquittal of the offence only means of they having not committed theft of the stones from the house of P.W. 1. but that does not mean that the, stones seized also belonged to them. So far as an order u/s 452. Code of Criminal Procedure. is concerned it is for the respective parties to prove their entitlement to the property seized and the Court is called upon to pass orders at the conclusion of the trial in respect of the seized property which includes the powers also to direct confiscation of the property to the State if it is found that it does not belong either to the informant or to the accused or any ascertainable person. There is also no procedure that any independent enquiry is to be held u/s 452, Code of Criminal Procedure. to ascertain the ownership of the property. The Section itself directs the order is to be passed by the Court at the conclusion of the inquiry or the trial which evidently means that the order regarding disposal of the property is to be passed on the basis of the available evidence on record. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. 4. In the result, both the revisions are dismissed as being without any merit. Revisions dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed