Judgment :- These three revision cases are disposed of together, since the petitioner is the same and most of the respondents are also common, though counter claimants, claiming to be entitled to possession of the case property, are different. 2. A common order was passed in appeals, on two different applications preferred by the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai and numbered as Crl.M.P. Nos.1307 and 1308 of 1987 respectively, leading to preferring of Crl.App. Nos.85 and 86 of 1988 before the learned Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, which are now subject matters of Criminal Revision Nos.273 and 374 of 1989. 3. Brief facts which led to the filing of Crl.M.P. Nos.1307 and 1308 of 1987 will have to be stated: Noor Mohamed (first respondent in Crl.R.C. No. 273 of 1989), a resident of Ambalpuram, Pudukkottai, complained on 23. 1986, about the theft of gold jewellery and cash from his house, on the earlier night, resulting in registration of Cr. No.282 of 1|985 on the file of Pudukkottai Town Police Station and similarly Venkatachalapathy (first respondent in Crl.R.C. No.274 of 1989) preferred a complaint on 6. 1985 at Pudukkottai Town Police Station, alleging that, on the night of 6. 1985, theft stood committed from his house of 13 sovereigns of gold jewellery and Rs. 1,500 in cash, on which Cr. No.455 of 1988 was duly registered. After investigation was conducted for a few months, on 12. 1985 both the crimes were closed a ‘undetected’. However on 12. 1986, on the basis of certain finger prints, removed from the venues of crime, it became evident that the offender in these two crimes must be one of those regular thieves and hence re-investigation was commenced. .4. While, so, on 24. 1986 one Nagoor Pichai was arrested by the second respondent (Manickavasagam) who was then inspector of Police, Thanjavur Taluk Police Station. When examined Nagoor Pichai confessed of his having committed theft in 38 different places, which included the houses of Noor Mohamed and Venkatachalapathy, first respondent in Crl.R.C. Nos.273 and 274 of 1989 respectively. On information furnished by the second respondent, fourth respondent (Natarajan) then Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Police Station joined the former, in investigation. When examined Nagoor Pichai confessed of his having committed theft in 38 different places, which included the houses of Noor Mohamed and Venkatachalapathy, first respondent in Crl.R.C. Nos.273 and 274 of 1989 respectively. On information furnished by the second respondent, fourth respondent (Natarajan) then Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Police Station joined the former, in investigation. On the basis of the confession of Nagoor Pichai, it became evident that he had sold, the jewellery committed theft of, from the houses of Noor Mohamed and Venkatachalapathy, at the jewellery shop of the petitioner, situated at Chidambaram. Respondents 2 and 4 proceeded to Chidambaram along with Nagoor Pichai, At or about 10 a.m. on 24. 1986, Nagoor Pichai pointed out the petitioner, who was then present in his shop, “Murugan Jewellery” situated in Bazaar Street, Chidambaram. Nagoor Pichai stated that he had sold the jewellery committed theft of from the house of Noor Mohamed and Venkatachalapathy to the petitioner herein, It is the case of respondents 2 and 4 that the petitioner admitted having purchased stolen jewellery from Nagoor Pichai and thereafter produced 22 items of jewellery, allegedly committed theft of from the house of Noor Mohamed and that included a small gold ingot. Similarly, petitioner produced five different pieces of jewellery weighing approximately 104 gms. allegedly committed theft of from the residence of Venkatachalapathy. On completion of investigation charge sheets were laid against Nagoor Pichai, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, resulting in cognizance being taken in C.C. Nos.578 and 579 of 1986. Offences alleged against Nagoor Pichai were under Secs.457(2) and 380, I.P.C. Nagoor Pichai admitted his guilt and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 months under each count in C.C. No.578 of 1986, while in C.C. No.579 of 1986 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 months, under each count. Substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently in each one of these cases, as well as jointly in both the calendar cases. Those judgments were pronounced by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19. 1986. 5. Even while disposing of C.C. Nos.578 and 579 of 1986, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, directed return of concerned case property to Noor Mohamed and Venkatachalapathy. Petitioner who would not seek to claim the Jewellery in those two calendar cases at the earliest point of time, however, preferred Crl.App. Nos. 1986. 5. Even while disposing of C.C. Nos.578 and 579 of 1986, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, directed return of concerned case property to Noor Mohamed and Venkatachalapathy. Petitioner who would not seek to claim the Jewellery in those two calendar cases at the earliest point of time, however, preferred Crl.App. Nos. 195 and 196 of 1986 challenging property return order made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, in the aforestated two calendar cases. Those two appeals were allowed on the short question that property order must have been passed after affording an opportunity to the petitioner herein. It was thereafter that the petitioner preferred Crl.M.P. Nos. 1307 and 1308 of 1987 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai. .6. A full-fledged enquiry was conducted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It was the case of the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, that when he was sleeping at his residence, at or about 3 a.m. on 12. 1986, respondents 2 and 3 tapped the door of his house, woke him up and took him away in a police van to Thanjavur and pestered to offer 680 gms. of gold jewellery, alleging that he was the purchaser of jewellery stolen. It is his case, that respondents 2 to 4 told him, that he had obtained stolen jewellery from one harmony though he denied having obtained stolen jewellery from Dharman or any one else. Police officials would not heed to his statement and compelled him to part with the jewellery, as required by them. 7. On 20.2.1986, in the company of a Head Constable, petitioner went over to Chidambaram and with the help of certain cold-smiths, converted certain pieces of jewellery belonging to his family into six gold ingots, weighing 680 gms. and returned with those gold ingots to Thanjavur. At Thanjavur, before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, petitioner handed over the six gold ingots to the fourth respondent. Even after obtaining gold ingots, petitioner was not released immediately and was kept in illegal custody till 22. 1986. On the presumption that the gold ingots would have been produced before the court at Thanjavur, petitioner preferred an application for return of property before Thanjavur Court on 3. 1986. Petition was returned since details regarding Crime No. Police Station etc. were conspicuously absent. Thereafter, petitioner caused a lawyer’s notices being served on respondent 4 and 5, which were returned, without acceptance. 1986. Petition was returned since details regarding Crime No. Police Station etc. were conspicuously absent. Thereafter, petitioner caused a lawyer’s notices being served on respondent 4 and 5, which were returned, without acceptance. Petitioner also preferred Crl.M.P. No.3288 of 1986 before this Court, apparently, for return of property. He then became aware about the production of case property before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai. A joint application was preferred by the petitioner for return of property, in both the crimes, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, but it was returned with a direction that two separate applications should be filed. Meanwhile, property orders stood passed finally and hence he had to approach the appellate court, which remanded the matter for fresh disposal. .8. Enquiring Magistrate, on the basis of evidence brought on record, directed return of the case property in Crl.M.P. Nos.1307 and 1308 of 1987, to the petitioner herein. Noor Mohamed and Venkatachalapathy, who were aggrieved at the property return order, passed by the Enquiring Magistrate, preferred Crl.App. Nos.85 and 86 of 1987, before the Court of Sessions, Pudukkottai. Appellate Court, after elaborate discussion of the entire evidence, found that the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Crl.M.P. Nos.1307 and 1308 of 1987 cannot be sustained and directed return of respective case property to the appellants. Petitioner, who is aggrieved by the appellate order, has chosen to prefer Crl.R.C. Nos.273 and 274 of 1989 seeking exercise of revisional powers of this Court. 9. Mr.N.T.Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in all the three revisions, initially made his submissions, in Crl.R.C. Nos.273 and 274 of 1989. He pointed out that, soon after the petitioner was taken into custody on 12. 1986, his wife had forwarded telegram, Ex.P-10. to the Chief Minister on the same day. He further pointed out that, as soon as the petitioner was released by the police on 22. 1986, he had preferred Ex.P-1 on 3. 1986 before Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur, for return of property and on its return he moved this Court on 4. 1986. After this Court dismissed his pleas on 7. 1986 (Ex.P-16) he had taken steps before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, seeking return of property. Comparing these dates, with the case of the respondents, which show that the first information reports were registered on 6. 1986. After this Court dismissed his pleas on 7. 1986 (Ex.P-16) he had taken steps before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai, seeking return of property. Comparing these dates, with the case of the respondents, which show that the first information reports were registered on 6. 85 and 27.3 1985 respectively (Exs.D-3 and D-2) and the accused concerned was arrested only on 24. 1986 leading to recovery on 24. 1986 (Ex.D-1), he submitted that even in February, 1986 and early March, 1986, petitioner had complained to the authorities concerned about gold having been seized from him and hence subsequent recovery should be held to be a make-believe or bogus recovery. Before 12. 1986, Mr.N.T. Vandmamalai, contended, that the petitioner had no bad antecedents and that should also be taken note of. He contended that the learned appellate Judge was in error when he stated that it was the case of the petitioner in his petition, that only one goldsmith was engaged to melt jewellery, though, in paragraph 4 of the petition, petitioner has clearly stated that he had engaged goldsmiths (in plural) to melt gold. He further pointed out, that the learned appellate Judge could not have mechanically ignored the sending of telegrams and further steps taken by the petitioner to get back his property. .10. On these contentions, I have heard Mr.Thayaparan, learned counsel representing the first respondent in Crl.R.C. No.274 of 1989. He contended that his client had identified the jewellery produced in court as belonging to him, since most of them were in species. He referred to the finding of the learned appellate Judge, that" Ex.P-8 the declaration produced by the petitioner himself, was against his case, showing that he could not have parted with jewellery to the police, as claimed by him. He then invited my attention to the difference in weight of the gold ornaments, evidenced by the book entries, brought on record by the petitioner. 11. As far as Crl.R.C. No.376 of 1989 is concerned, the other claimant is Periyanayaga Das, who is the first respondent in this revision. Periyanayaga Das had lost his jewellery, on account of theft from his residence and his complaint was registered as Cr. No. 230/ 87 by Neyveli Police Station. Kaliyan alias Kaliyamoorthy was arrested in the said crime and it was on his statement that on 27. Periyanayaga Das had lost his jewellery, on account of theft from his residence and his complaint was registered as Cr. No. 230/ 87 by Neyveli Police Station. Kaliyan alias Kaliyamoorthy was arrested in the said crime and it was on his statement that on 27. 1988, at or about 9.15 p.m. from Murugan Jewellery Shop, belonging to the petitioner, a two row gold chain and a gold ingot, weighing 18 gms. were recovered as stated earlier on the information furnished by Kaliyan. In C.C. No.438 of 1988 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli, Kaliyan admitted his guilt and he Was convicted under Secs.457(2) and 380, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under each count. This judgment was pronounced on 9. 1988. .12. On 27. 1988, petitioner preferred an application under Sec.457, Crl.P.C, before the learned Magistrate, pleading for return of jewellery he stated therein, that on 7. 1988, police compelled him to part with 51 gms of gold jewellery, without stating reasons. Petitioner preferred Crl.M.P. No.4437 of 1988 before this Court on 17. 1988, pleading for bail in the. event of arrest. Notice was ordered in this petition. It was on that night that Neyveli Police, along with four others, arrived in a car and compelled the persons in his shop to part with a two row gold chain, bearing M.R. Seal and a ring, all weighing about 50.700 gms. P.W.2, Murugesan Clerk of the petitioner, demanded receipt from the police, which was refused. How-ever, P.W.2 prepared a bill to show taking away of certain jewellery by the police. Even on 17. 1088, telegrams were given to the higher authorities. On 17. 1988, petitioner preferred an application for return of jewellery before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chidambaram, but the same was returned, since jewellery, had not been received by that court. Petitioner later became aware that in Cr. No.230 of 1987 his jewellery had been sent to court, as though concerned with the said crime. His application was later numbered as Crl.M.P. No.3617 of 1988. Periyanayaga Das, the victim of theft, had also preferred an application for return of property, and the same was numbered as Crl.M.P. No.4502 of 1988. Both the petitions were taken up for disposal together, and after examination of witnesses, enquiring court ordered return of case property to the petitioner. His application was later numbered as Crl.M.P. No.3617 of 1988. Periyanayaga Das, the victim of theft, had also preferred an application for return of property, and the same was numbered as Crl.M.P. No.4502 of 1988. Both the petitions were taken up for disposal together, and after examination of witnesses, enquiring court ordered return of case property to the petitioner. Aggrieved Periyanayaga Das preferred Crl.M.P. No.2832 of 1988, which virtually was an appeal. Learned Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, set aside the order of return of property made by the enquiring Magistrate and ordered its return to the first respondent herein, viz., Periyanayaga Das. Petitioner, aggrieved by that order, has preferred Crl.R.C. No.376 of 1989. 13. Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai, learned senior counsel, submitted that the conduct of the petitioner, having moved this Court for anticipatory bail, soon after demand was made from him by the police for production of jewellery, cannot be lost sight of and an affected trader cannot do anything more than that, except forwarding telegrams to higher authorities and taking steps, in courts of law. 14. Mr.K.V. Sridharan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, Periyanayaga Das submitted that the first respondent had identified the jewellery lost by him and hence the case of the petitioner cannot be easily accepted. He brought to my notice, the case of the first respondent even when he preferred a complaint about the existence of the mark “S.P.S.” in the jewellery, which mark was found at the time of seizure, from the shop of the petitioner. He then contended, that though, according to P.W.2, declaration about the availability of the gold at the shop of the petitioner, and in their custody, was made, it was not brought on record in evidence, though in the other cases, petitioner had chosen to exhibit such a declaration. He also contended that the son of the petitioner, whatever be his name, was present at the time of seizure of the case property and he has shied the witness box. His final submission was, that orders passed by criminal courts as to the persons entitled to possession of case property, are only tentative orders and ultimately the civil court will have to decide on title to property. .15. His final submission was, that orders passed by criminal courts as to the persons entitled to possession of case property, are only tentative orders and ultimately the civil court will have to decide on title to property. .15. I have carefully assessed, the several contentions urged by three different counsel, in these three revisions, It is settled law that the criminal courts, while passing property Orders on conclusion of trial, are concerned with fixing of persons entitled to possession thereof and they do not decide about the title to the property. Time and again, pronouncements have been made that the enquiry contemplated in respect of disposal of property need not have to be elaborate but could be summary enough, to the extent of ascertaining the person entitled to possession of case property. Again, principles stand enunciated that statements recorded by the police under Sec. 161, Crl.P.C. or Sec.25 of the Indian Evidence Act, though not admissible during trial to prove the offence, can be looked, into for arriving at a conclusion as to the person entitled to possession of case property. Keeping these principles in view, let me now assess the inherent merits of the rival contentions. 16. As stated earlier, Crl.R.C. Nos.273 and 274 of 1989 go together. The only difference is that the counter claimant, in each case, is different. It is quite true that the petitioners wife had forwarded telegrams to the Chief Minister on 112. 1986, alleging that her husband had been taken into custody by the police. It is also the case of the petitioner, that recovery of gold was made from him on 20.2.1986. All that we are concerned in these two revisions, is whether the alleged seizure on 20.2.1986, the truth or otherwise of which need not have to be pronounced by this Court, has anything to do, with the recoveries effected from the petitioner’s shop on 24. 1986. We cannot overlook, that the first respondent in each one of these cases had complained at Pudukkottai Town Police about the theft of jewellery from their respective houses, even in March and June, 1985, long long before the ‘alleged recovery’, of gold, from the house of the petitioner on 20.2.1986. 1986. We cannot overlook, that the first respondent in each one of these cases had complained at Pudukkottai Town Police about the theft of jewellery from their respective houses, even in March and June, 1985, long long before the ‘alleged recovery’, of gold, from the house of the petitioner on 20.2.1986. While complaining to the police, first respondent, in each one of these revisions, had given certain descriptions of the jewellery, lost by them, and those description tally with most of the seizures made on 24. 1986 from the shop of the petitioner. It will be a strange co-incidence, that properties lost on 6. 1985 and 23. 1985 and described at that point of time, clearly synchronize, atleast most of them, with the recovery made on 24. 1986. We cannot also ignore that the two crimes, registered at the instance of the first respondent in each one of those cases, were referred on 12. 1985 and re-opened only three months thereafter, leading to arrest of Nagoor Pichai, who, on being questioned, was in a position to point out the shop of the petitioner, was in a position to point out the shop of the petitioner, where he had sold the jewellery, committed theft of. The statement made by the accused, Nagoor Pichai and the statements under Sec. 161, Crl.P.C. made by witnesses inclusive of the petitioner will certainly be admissible in evidence and they clearly point out the seizures effected from the shop of the petitioner on 24. 1986. These facts definitely go against the petitioner. .17. One other clinching circumstance, which crashes to the bottom, the case of the petitioner is Ex.P-8, a declaration from brought on record by him. A declaration of stock of gold by the petitioner dated 23. 1986 is the subject matter of Ex.P-8, the date of his previous declaration is 13. 1986, when he had with him 818.500 gms of gold. 682 gms. have been shown in the declaration form, as having been taken away by Thanjavur and Pudukkottai Police. This taking away, according to the petitioner, was on 20.2.1986. It appears from the declaration that 818.500 gms. of gold was still available in March, 1986 and only thereafter 682 gms of gold stood taken away by Thanjavur and Pudukkottai Police. 682 gms. have been shown in the declaration form, as having been taken away by Thanjavur and Pudukkottai Police. This taking away, according to the petitioner, was on 20.2.1986. It appears from the declaration that 818.500 gms. of gold was still available in March, 1986 and only thereafter 682 gms of gold stood taken away by Thanjavur and Pudukkottai Police. Contradictions, which have been referred to in detail by the learned appellate Judge, would put an end to the claim of the petitioner, that any gold was recovered from him in February, 1986. Mr.N.T. Vanamamalai, learned Senior counsel, contended that he had to explain the on-slought of Ex.P-8, but added that the petitioner had probably made a mistake in the date. He clarified by stating that instead of mentioning as 12. 1986, he may have mentioned as on 13. 1986. We cannot concede that the petitioner had committed a mistake, unless there are circumstances to conclude, that there was a bona fide mistake. Such circumstances are conspicuously absent in this case. Apart from this serious infirmity, as rightly pointed out by first respondent’s learned counsel and discussed by the learned Appellate Judge in paragraph 13 of his judgment, there is difference in the weight of-gold allegedly melted by P.Ws.3 and 4. The documentary evidence brought on record by the petitioner himself discloses some difference in weight, of course in gms. That difference has lot of significance. Goldsmiths and gold dealers cannot ignore that vital difference in the weight of gold and that is one more indication that the petitioner had not spoken the truth. Mere sending of telegrams to the authorities, without any connection to the impugned seizure, will be of no avail to the petitioner. I am satisfied, that the appellate court had correctly considered the evidence on record and held in favour of the first respondent in each one of these revisions. Crl.R.C. Nos.273 and 274 of 1989 shall stand dismissed. .18. As far as Crl.No.376 of 1989 is concerned, the absence of production of declaration admittedly available is certainly a vital aspect. The petitioner was undisputedly not present at the time of impugned seizure. P.W.2, his employee, was present and according to his evidence, the son of the petitioner will also in-charge of the shop, if the petitioner was not available in his shop. The petitioner was undisputedly not present at the time of impugned seizure. P.W.2, his employee, was present and according to his evidence, the son of the petitioner will also in-charge of the shop, if the petitioner was not available in his shop. It will hence be just to presume, that the son of the petitioner must have been available at the relevant time. The evidence available shows that the son of the petitioner, whatever be his name, was available to be pointed out by Kaliyan, the accused, as the person to whom he had sold the gold jewellery concerned in the relevant crime. It was thereafter that the jewelleries were seized. The attempt made by P.W.2 to prepare a document, Ex.P-2, clearly shows, the self-serving purpose, that was intended out of it. P.W.2 has admitted that in the past, Dindigul Police and Pudukkottai Police had seized gold jewellery from his Master’s shop, alleging them to be stolen jewellery, and on those occasions, no such receipt, similar to Ex.P-2, was prepared. The most important circumstance, that has to be noticed is the identification mark of the two row gold chain mentioned in the complaint of Periyanayaga Das, having been found in the chain seized from the shop of the petitioner, at the instance of the accused in the crime, who was certain that he had sold the jewellery, committed theft of from the house of the first respondent, at the petitioner’s shop. It is prima facie evident, that on more than one occasion, police officers belonging to different police stations had seized gold jewellery from the shop of the petitioners, stating that they were stolen jewellery, obviously on being pointed out by different accused. In that background, any step taken by the petitioner, as though to alert the higher authorities, can have no consequence whatever. It is not uncommon, that experienced people in this trade, nefarious indeed who obtain stolen properties, do adopt these tactics. If there are no receivers, there can hardly be thieves. The fact situation and the law available have been correctly taken note of by the learned appellate Judge. The findings recorded by him are impeachable. 19. In Mahesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 S.C.C. (Crl.) 219, Supreme Court observed, that confessional part of statement of accused leading to discovery, can be made us of for the purpose of disposal of property. The findings recorded by him are impeachable. 19. In Mahesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 1991 S.C.C. (Crl.) 219, Supreme Court observed, that confessional part of statement of accused leading to discovery, can be made us of for the purpose of disposal of property. This principle has been followed by the learned appellate Judge. 20. In Govindachari v. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Aminjikarai, 1978 L.W. (Crl.) 193, Paul, J. held, that it was not necessary for passing an order under Sec.452, Crl.P.C. that the trial court should examine witnesses and hold an elaborate enquiry. Learned Judge took note therein of the statement recorded under Sec. 161 (3), Crl.P.C. In the instant case, extensive evidence had been let in, and on proper appreciation, of the evidence brought on record, the findings of the appellate court cannot be assailed. Paul, J. has further observed, on the basis of the law laid down in Tookappa v. State, 1977 M.L.J. (Crl.) 247, that the order of the learned Magistrate was only a tentative arrangement and the final title to the property or right to possess the same are to be determined by the civil court or any other court of competent jurisdiction. 21. David Annoussamy, J. in J. Ramachandran, v. P.Sangili, 1985 L.W. (Crl.) 14 (S.N.), observed as hereunder: “For an order under Sec.452, Crl.P.C. there is no need of evidence in the strict sense of the word, because the court is not finally deciding on the matter. All that the court requires is only indications as to in what direction it should proceed. It is for that reason that the courts have consistently held that all the materials on record can be looked into in order to arrive at a proper decision.” 22. I have no hesitation in dismissing Crl.R.C. No.376 of 1989, as well. The net result is that all these three revision cases are dismissed. The verdict in these revisions will not affect the civil rights of the parties, if any.