Honble SINGH, J.–Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. (2). Admit. (3). Issue notice to the non-petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of the non-petitioner and the service is complete. (4). Heard the arguments and perused the case diary which has been made available by the learned Public Prosecutor. (5). It appears that on 18.4.1996 Malchand was entered in an accident. He was putting on an apparel which contains as many as 14 pockets and in those pockets Indian currency notes of one lakh five thousand were found. These currency notes were seized by the Police Officer who was conducting investigation of the criminal case (FIR No. 64/96) under Section 279 and 337 IPC. Another amount of Rs. one lakh was recovered from the possession of Hanuman Singh who was seriously in- jured and unnecessary succumb to his injuries. (6). It appears that Shri Kishan Lal (petitioner) moved an application in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Kuchman City praying that the amount of Rs. two lach five thousand which had been recoveredfrom Malchand and Hanuman Singh should be returned to him because this amount was belonging to him. (7). So far as the currency and bullion are concerned they title to them, immediately passes to the person whom they are given and, therefore, the amount which had been recovered from Malchand and Hanuman Singh should be prima facie deemed to be belonging to them. (8). For reasons mentioned above the amount of one lakh five thousand which had been recovered from Malchand should be presumed to be his property. Whether he was or was not under a civil obligation to pay this amount to any other person is a matter which cannot be decided by the Magistrate under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. Similarly the money which was recovered from Hanuman Singh should be preusmed to be the property of Hanuman Singh and if any other person claims a right to obtain the same amount it is the competent Court which alone can inquire into such claim and give a final decision. (9). (9). For reasons mentioned above the petitioner Kishan Lal does not appear to be entitled to get the amount seized by the police under Section 102 Cr.P.C. If Malchand from whose possession one lakh five thousand was recovered moves an application for the recovery of that amount, his application shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Similarly if the legal heirs of Hanuman Singh move an application for obtaining the sum of Rs. one lakh which was recoveredfrom the body of Hanuman Singh then their application shall be considered in accor- dance with law if the applicant Kishan Lal has any civil rights in this behalf he may take appropriate proceedings for the recovery of the amount in accordance with law. (10). The petition is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman City for information and necessary action.