JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - The facts giving rise to this revision may be briefly stated as follows: On the night 20/21-2-1982 at village Barakhama (within Balliguda P.S. in Phulbani district) at about 1 a. m. same unknown culprits entered the house of the informant (the present, Petitioner) and committed theft of one gold Mali weighing about 4 tolas from the neck of his mother who was sleeping in the front room of the house. The informant lodged the F.I.R. about the occurrence and the police on the basis of the report proceeded with the investigation of the case and during the course of such investigation gold beads etc at the alleged stolen gold mali in separated bits were recovered from the Present opposite patty No. 1. Bijay Kumar Bastarai under seizure list Ext. 1 and the same are marked as M.O. I and conveniently referred to herein after as the gold mali, M.O. I. As accused Bijay and co-acused Uma Charan Digal went to Bhanjanagar for selling the gold mali M.O. I and as the same was recovered from accused Bijoy at Bhanjanagar the police registered G.R Case No. 49 of 1982 against the present opposite party, No. 1 and the said Uma Charan Digal and submitted the charge-sheet against the both opposite party No. l- and Uma Charan Digal stood their trial u/s 457/380/34 I.P.C. The trial Court acquitted them of all the charges levelled against them. While so acquitting them the trial Court passed an order directing the gold Mali M.O.I seized in the case to be returned to the informant. Being aggrieved by the said order of disposal passed by the S.D.J.M., Balliguda, the present opposite party No. 1 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 35 of 1985 before the Sessions Judge, Phulbani. On hearing both the parties the learned Sessions Judge allowed the appeal and directed that, the seized gold Mali M.O. I be returned to the present opposite party No. 1. Being aggrieved by the said order the present Petitioner has preferred this revision. 2. So the bone of contention between the present Petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 is that each of them claims that he is entitled to the possession of the gold Mali M.O. I and so the same ought to be returned to him in view of the provisions u/s 452, Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. 2. So the bone of contention between the present Petitioner and the opposite party No. 1 is that each of them claims that he is entitled to the possession of the gold Mali M.O. I and so the same ought to be returned to him in view of the provisions u/s 452, Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. For convenience of ready reference Section 452(1), Code of Criminal Procedure is quoted below: 452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of tria1-(1) When an inquiry or 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 or document procedure 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. Subsection (1) of Section 452 of the new Code reproduces Sub-section (1) of Section 517 of the old Code. 4. In G.R. Case No. 49 of 1982 during the course of the investigation no test identification parade was conducted in respect of the seized gold Mali M.O. I. The informant's mother from whose neck the gold Mali was stolen was not examined as a witness in the case to identify the seized gold Mali M.O. I to be the stolen gold Mali. None of the female members of the informant's family was examined to identify the seized gold Mali M.O. I to be the Mali which was stolen from the neck of the informant's mother on the relevant night. It is only the informant who deposed that the gold Mali M.O. I was the Mali which was stolen from the neck of his mother. In view of these circumstances: the learned S.D.J.M. arrived at the finding that it is not duly proved if the gold Mali M.O. I was the gold Mali stolen from the neck of the informant's mother. The learned S.D.J.M. did not give any categorical finding that the gold Mali M.O. I belonged to accused Bijoy Kumar (the present opposite party No. 1). From the statements of the two accused persons u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure it is seen that each of them claims the gold Mali M.O. I. to be his. The learned S.D.J.M. did not give any categorical finding that the gold Mali M.O. I belonged to accused Bijoy Kumar (the present opposite party No. 1). From the statements of the two accused persons u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure it is seen that each of them claims the gold Mali M.O. I. to be his. In view of the above circumstances, from the material available at this stage, it is difficult to arrive at the finding as to who is the person entitled to the possession of the gold Mali M.O. I. It is precisely to meet such a situation, as in the present case, Section 452, Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the Court may make such order as it thinks fit. 5. Undoubtedly, the general rule is that when the property is seized from a person and he is acquitted of the charge, that property should be returned to him. But this rule is itself subject to several exceptions depending on the circumstances of each case and no accused person can also claim as of right, that the property seized from him should be returned to him. (See Arjun Padhy and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Another, ). The scope of the powers exercisable u/s 452, Code of Criminal Procedure is only summary which does not adjudicate upon the civil rights of the parties. Under Section 452, Code of Criminal Procedure the choice of the mode or manner of disposal is not to be made arbitrarily, but judicially in accordance with sound principles founded on reason and justice, keeping in view the class and nature of the property and the material before it. (See N. Madhavan Vs. State of Kerala, . In the present case, there are conflicting claims to the gold Mali and the title can only be decided by a civil Court. 6. From the order of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 35 of (1985 it is seen that he has not duly taken into account the conflicting claims of the parties and without applying his judicial mind to all the facts and circumstances of the case mechancally following the normal rule, passed the impugned order directing the delivery of the seized property to the accused Appellant. So the impugned order needs to be modified materially. So the impugned order needs to be modified materially. Hence the following order is passed: The seized gold Mali M.O. I should continue to be in the custody of the Court of the S.D.J.M., Balliguda, for a further period of two months from today that is till 8-10-1990. It is open to the informant in the case to file a suit in the meanwhile in a civil Court to establish his title to the gold Mali M.O. I in question. If on or before 8-10-1990 the learned S.D.J.M. is informed about the filing of such civil suit he should continue to be in custody of the seized property as before, subject to any order that might be passed by a competent civil Court. However, even during the pendency of the civil suit the civil Court may pass any order for obtaining the custody of the seized property to itself. and the same be obeyed. In case the learned S.D.J.M. is not informed about any civil suit being filed in respect of the seized gold Mali M.O. I on or before 8-10-1990 then after 8-10-1990 the learned S.D.J.M is directed to deliver the seized gold Mali M.O. I to accused Bijay Kumar Bastarai. 7. In the result, the revision is only partly allowed, in that the order of disposal of the seized property passed by the learned Sessions Judge is modified to the extent indicated above. Revision partly allowed. Final Result : Allowed