JUDGMENT : S.C. Datta, J. - This revision is directed against order dated 13-10-93 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam, Berhampur confirming order dated 28-7-92 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote directing return of seized articles to the present opposite party on execution of a bond of Rs. 60,000/- with one surety with stipulation of restoring the seized articles to the court in the event the order is modified and set-aside appeal on revision. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petition may be stated as under. 3. The Petitioner Udayanath Baidya is the father of the deceased Jagabandhu Baidya while the opposite party is the widow of Sahadev Baidya. Sahadev Baidya and Jagabandhu Baidya are fast friends. On the night of 10-8-1991 Sahadev was murdered by an unknown culprit. Accordingly Khallikote P.S. Case No. 38/91 was registered. Jagabandhu was suspected to have murdered the said Sahadev Baidya, on the ground that on the night both of them had their last meeting and dinner and Jagabandhu left for his job at Delhi on the next day. According to Petitioner Jagabandhu had a lottery ticket selling business at Delhi and he used to stay there. The police of Khallikote Police Station had reached Delhi and arrested Jagabandhu on 8-1-91. He was tortured and in consequence thereof he died in police custody on the same night. From his room the police recovered a sum of Rs. 21,000/- and some gold ornaments besides a key bunch and driving license standing in the name of deceased Sahadev. Since Jagabandhu died in police custody the Khallikote P.S. Case No. 38/91 was dropped. 4. Later two petitions were filed before the learned J.M.F.C., Khallikote. One by the present Petitioner and other by the opposite party claiming return of the articles which were recovered from the possession of Jagabandhu at Delhi. After hearing both the parties learned Magistrate directed return of those articles to the present opposite party on the ground that she is the right person to receive the seized articles. Learned Magistrate rejected the claim of the present Petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate the present Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court but the appellate Court by order dated 13-10-93 dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition. 6. Learned Magistrate rejected the claim of the present Petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate the present Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court but the appellate Court by order dated 13-10-93 dismissed the appeal. Hence this revision petition. 6. It has been contended by the Petitioner that since the articles and cash money were recovered from the room of the deceased Jagabandhu at Delhi, the same should have been returned to the Petitioner who is the father of the deceased Jagabandhu. According to the Petitioner the gold ornaments have not been identified by the opposite party and no list of ornaments was annexed to the complaint petition or to the F.I.R. filed by her. It has been urged that the Courts below erred in acting upon 161, Criminal Procedure Code statements which were prepared long after the recovery of the articles. 7. It has been further contended that the courts below were carried away by suspicions only and there is no positive evidence to prove that those articles really belonged to the opposite party. 8. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. It is not disputed that gold ornaments and cash amount of Rs. 21,000/- besides key-bunch and driving license standing in the name of the deceased Sahadev Baidya were recovered from the possession of Jagabandhu at Delhi. Jagabandhu died within the few hours of his arrest. The case which was started against the deceased Jagabandhu for the murder of Sahadev was dropped because of death of Jagabandbu in police custody. The present dispute relates to the return of the seized articles including cash money which were recovered from the room of the deceased Jagabandhu at Delhi. The Petitioner is the father of the deceased Jagabandhu. He claims return of the articles as according to him those articles including cash money belonged to his son. The opposite party claims return of the seized property being the widow of the deceased Sahadev. It appears from the order of the learned Magistrate that the learned Magistrate disposed of the rival claims of the party mainly relying upon the statements made u/s 161, Criminal Procedure Code. It further appears that the learned Magistrate has drawn conclusion upon some strong circumstances as well which went unexplained by the Petitioner. The Petitioner became unsuccessful in the Appellate Court. It further appears that the learned Magistrate has drawn conclusion upon some strong circumstances as well which went unexplained by the Petitioner. The Petitioner became unsuccessful in the Appellate Court. It is to be considered whether any interference by this Court is necessary in revision. 9. As already noticed there are rival claims one by the Petitioner and other by the opposite party claiming ownership of the seized articles including cash amount of Rs. 21,000/-, learned Magistrate elaborately dealt with the statement of witnesses u/s 161, Criminal Procedure Code and took note of circumstances appearing in favor of opposite party. Learned Magistrate concluded that the opposite party being the widow and guardian of the minor children is competent to receive the cash and gold ornaments. The Petitioner claims himself to be the father of the deceased Jagabandhu from whose custody the seized articles including cash money was recovered at Delhi. It appears clear therefore that the question of title to the seized property has arisen in the present case and it cannot be satisfactorily decided by Criminal Court. Learned Magistrate disposed of the conflicting claims of the party on the basis of materials available on records. Since a question of title to property has arisen it will be better to leave the Petitioner to his remedy in the Civil Court. This Court does not feel inclined to adjudicate upon the civil rights of the parties. In that view of the matter I think this Court should not interfere with the impugned order in revision. The parties may seek their remedy in a Civil Court if so advised. With this observation the revision petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed