Judgment Govinda Menon, J. Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 1959 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 321 of 1959 arise out of an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Trivandrum in C.C. No. 22 of 1959. Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 1959 is filed by the State against the order of acquittal of the four respondents who had been charged along with another for an offence punishable under section 420, Indian Penal Code. Criminal Revision Petition No. 321 of 1959 is a petition filed earlier by the first informant P.W. 1 in the case for revising the order of the learned Magistrate challenging the order of acquittal of the accused and also the order regarding the disposal of the properties. These two matters were heard together and I propose to pass one common order. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Puthenchantha, had charged the four respondents who were accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 for having cheated P.W. 1 an offence punishable under section 420 Indian Penal Code. P.W. 1 is a big businessman belonging to Kanyakumari District. It is stated that he had made arrangements with a firm “Kulathunkal Corporation” to take delivery of a motor-chassis. For that purpose on 18th November, 1958 he came to Trivandrum by the morning bus with a sum of Rs.5,000 all in hundred rupee notes. Accused 1 and 2 who were known to P.W. 1 before and who, it is suggested, had known that P.W. 1 was coming to Trivandrum with money, met him at Pazhavangadi. They took him to one Jacob's Hotel near the Ayurveda College. They occupied a room in the hotel and after resting there for some time, accused 1 and 2 represented that the 1st accused had to get a sum of over Rs.5,000, from a shop in Chalai towards the price of rice sold by him, that the said amount is kept there in small denomination notes and that if P.W. 1 would help him by giving Rs.5,000, in hundred rupee notes he would go at once to Chalaiandget the small denomination notes for Rs.5,000. P.W. 1, it is stated believed this representation and handed over the 50 hundred rupee currency notes to the 1st accused. The 1st accused received the notes and went out promising to return immediately with the small notes leaving the 2nd accused with P.W. 1. P.W. 1, it is stated believed this representation and handed over the 50 hundred rupee currency notes to the 1st accused. The 1st accused received the notes and went out promising to return immediately with the small notes leaving the 2nd accused with P.W. 1. P.W. 1 waited for a long time but not finding the 1st accused returning he grew restive and suspicious. He asked the 2nd accused as to why the 1st accused was not returning. The 2nd accused then offered to go in search of the 1st accused but P.W. 1 did not allow him to go. Then a taxi was engaged and in the company of the 2nd accused they searched the whole town for the 1st accused, but without any success. In the evening he called his clerk over the phone and directed him to bring the list of the number of hundred rupee notes which he had brought with him to Trivandrum in the morning. Then he went with the 2nd accused to the Kulathungal Corporation and apprised Mr. Pothen, the proprietor of what had happened. Under instructions from him P.W. 1 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. Exhibit P-1 is that complaint and Exhibit P-2 is the list showing the number of the currency notes, which was, by that time brought by P.W. 1's clerk. The police registered a case and arrested the second accused who was also with P.W. 1. On information furnished by the 2nd accused all of them went to Varkalai the next day and arrested the 1st accused from the house of P.W. 6. First accused was questioned and on information furnished by him a bag belonging to the 1st accused containing Rs.983, was recovered from the house of P.W. 7. The bag was opened with the key given by the 1st accused and among the currency notes found in the bag were found 3 hundred rupees notes which bore the same number shown in the list Exhibit P-2. The police also recovered Rs.3,590, from the shop of the 5th accused on the basis of information given by the 1st accused. In the meanwhile P.W. 10 one Mr. George finding a notification in the paper regarding the missing of some hundred rupee notes and their numbers and finding that 3 hundred rupee notes with him bore the same numbers produced them before the police. In the meanwhile P.W. 10 one Mr. George finding a notification in the paper regarding the missing of some hundred rupee notes and their numbers and finding that 3 hundred rupee notes with him bore the same numbers produced them before the police. Those three notes were among the notes which he had got by cashing a cheque from the Travancore Bank. The police questioned P.Ws. 3 and 4, the officers of the Trivandrum Permanent Bank. According to them on 18th November, 1958, the 1st accused had gone to their bank and encashed thirty-one hundred rupee notes. Similarly, P.W. 2 the cashier of the Travancore Bank stated that the 1st accused had changed seven hundred rupee notes in that bank on the afternoon of 18th November, 1958. P.W. 9 is a driver of a taxi, who deposes that on 18th November, 1958 accused 1, 3 and 5 had travelled in his taxi at about noon time. He also says that the 3rd accused had in his hand M.O. 1 the bag. The learned Magistrate found that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving any false representation and even though money might have been given to the 1st accused by P.W. 1 it could not have been in the manner spoken to by P.W. 1 and he found that the evidence of the recovery was inadmissible in evidence and acquitted all the accused. He also ordered M.O. I bag, M.O. II notes for Rs.983, with M.O. V lock and key of the bag to be returned to the 1st accused and Rs.3,590, recovered from the shop of the 5th accused to be returned to him. The State has therefore filed an appeal against the order of acquittal and the complainant has filed a revision for the return of the money to him. That P.W. 1 is the person who could have had this money and that he brought this money that day to Trivandrum for the purpose of purchasing a motor chassis from Kulathungal Corporation has been amply proved in this case. The learned Magistrate has doubted whether P.W. 1 had the money and whether he had really to remit this Rs. 5,000 on that day to Kulathungal Corporation as stated by P.W. 1. The learned Magistrate has doubted whether P.W. 1 had the money and whether he had really to remit this Rs. 5,000 on that day to Kulathungal Corporation as stated by P.W. 1. There is absolutely no basis for this doubt P.W. 1 stated that he had cashed a cheque for Rs.6,525-28 issued by the T.V.S. Company to the State Bank of India at Tirunelveli on 17th November, 1958 and that these 50 hundred rupee notes were included in the money which he had obtained from the State Bank. No doubt the State Bank was not summoned to prove the actual cashing of this cheque nor have they been summoned to produce, their account books and the cheque. P.W. 1 also has not produced his account book. It would have been better if these were produced. But these facts were not seriously challenged in cross-examination and the accused had no case that P.W. 1 is a person who would not have had money. P.W. 1 had noted the numbers of the notes, and that had been produced along with the complaint. If he had not those notes, one fails to see how he could have correctly given the numbers of the notes along with his complaint. It is also meaningless to say that only P.W. 11 the salesman of the Kulathungal Corporation has been examined and Mr. Pothen, the Proprietor has not been examined. Mr. Pothen is the person, according to P.W. 1, who arranged the chassis, but that fact could as well be proved by his salesman. P.W. 11 says that P.W. 1 had informed him by phone that he was going over to Trivandrum on 18th November, 1958 with the money. There is absolutely no reason to doubt his testimony. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination of this witness as to why he should come and give false evidence. Merely because the fact of the phone message is not spoken to by the witnesses at the time when they were questioned by the police and that fact is not seen to have been recorded by the police in the case diary statements of the witnesses would not falsify their evidence in Court. It also does not amount to a contradiction provable under section 162 Criminal Procedure Code as it is not such a vital omission as to amount to a contradiction. It also does not amount to a contradiction provable under section 162 Criminal Procedure Code as it is not such a vital omission as to amount to a contradiction. It seems to me that the learned Magistrate was therefore not justified in doubting the story of P.W. 1 that he had brought Rs.5,000 to be paid to the Kulathungal Corporation. Beyond expressing the doubt there is no such definite finding by the learned Magistrate. What the learned Magistrate says in paragraph 11 of the judgment is that “the evidence has not shut out the possibility to infer that if at all anything must have transpired between the 1st accused and P.W. 1 it must have been in some other form”. The learned Magistrate has also gone wrong in thinking that the evidence of recovery is not admissible in evidence. P.W. 15 the Head Constable of the Puthenchantha Police Station says that on information furnished by the 2nd accused, he went to Varkalai on 19th November, 1958, night and arrested the 1st accused. He was questioned and on information furnished by him the third accused was traced and P.W. 7 produced the bag. The bag was opened with the key which had been produced by the 1st accused. When opened it contained Rs.983. Out of these notes there were found three hundred rupee notes bearing the same number as mentioned in Exhibit P-2. Then they all went to the house of the 5th accused on information furnished by the 1st accused. The Head Constable questioned the 5th accused also and the 5th accused opened a safe in his shop and produced a packet containing currency notes and it was also recovered under Exhibit P-5. The Magistrate, no doubt, had recorded some evidence about the confession which really was not admissible in evidence but the fact remains that the 1st accused was traced on information supplied by the second accused and subsequently it was on information furnished by the first accused that the recovery of Rs.3,590 was made from the shop of the fifth accused. This evidence is certainly admissible even though the confessional portion by the accused admitting that they have committed the offence would not be admissible in evidence. This evidence is certainly admissible even though the confessional portion by the accused admitting that they have committed the offence would not be admissible in evidence. The statement of the learned Magistrate in paragraph 12 that the reliance placed by the prosecution on the aspects of recovery as a result of the information given by the first accused is not warranted is not correct. There is absolutely nothing to discredit the testimony of P.W. 15 the Head Constable or P.W. 18 the attesting witness to show that Rs.983 was really recovered from the bag M.O. 1. Regarding the recovery from the shop of the fifth accused the confessional statement by the fifth accused may not be admissible. The discovery of the fifth accused and the money entrusted to him were in pursuance of the information supplied by the first accused. It is also seen that it is only after the fifth accused had made the statement that he was arrested. Section 27 could not therefore be invoked. Now as far as the offence of cheating is concerned, the most essential ingredient that had to be proved by the prosecution was that P.W. 1 was cheated and thereby he was dishonestly induced to deliver the money to the first accused. Merely parting with money will not amount to cheating. Section 415, Indian Penal Code, defines what cheating is: “Whoever by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind reputation or property, is said to ‘cheat’”. Section 420, Indian Penal Code, says: “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” I have already dealt with the prosecution evidence. It is P.W. 1's case that the first accused represented that he had Rs.5,000 in small denomination notes which he got from a merchant at Chalai for the sale of rice and because it was small denomination notes he would like the notes to be converted into notes of higher denomination and he asked P.W. 1 whether he would give 50 hundred rupee notes in exchange for the small denomination notes and believing that representation to be true he parted with Rs.5,000 worth of currency notes. P.W. 1 is a big business man running an oil mill, conducting a fairly big shop at Kottar and having motor business with T.V.S. Brothers at Madurai. He is therefore a man well-versed in business transactions. If the first accused had said that he had Rs.5,000, in small denomination currency notes got by the sale of rice one would normally expect the money to be with the first accused rather than leaving it with any shopkepper at Chalai. If he wanted the money to be changed into high denomination notes anybody would have asked the first accused where the notes were and to get those notes before parting with such a big amount as Rs.5,000. It is too much to believe that a shrewd businessman like P.W. I would be so foolish as to believe the first accused's story and put this huge amount of Rs.5.000 in the hands of a person with whom he had no business dealings and who were only passing acquaintances. The learned Magistrate has given valid and convincing reasons why the story of false representation could not be accepted. I agree that it will not be safe to accept the uncorroborated testimony of P.W. 1 to find that he had been cheated. It must be remembered that this is in appeal against acquittal. There are no substantial or compelling reasons to differ from the view taken by the learned Magistrate acquitting the accused. Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 1959 is therefore dismissed. With, regard to the disposal of the property under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, which is the subject-matter of Criminal Revision Petition No. 321 of 1959, I am not satisfied with the way in which the matter had been disposed of. Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 1959 is therefore dismissed. With, regard to the disposal of the property under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, which is the subject-matter of Criminal Revision Petition No. 321 of 1959, I am not satisfied with the way in which the matter had been disposed of. The learned Magistrate observes: “Since I have now found that the prosecution has not proved any offence having been perpetrated in regard to these sums of money the only alternative for the Court is to place them status quo ante.” And so the money was ordered to be returned to the first accused and the fifth accused. Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, refers not only to property in respect of which offence has been committed but also to the property before the Court and in its custody. It does not matter if the property has not been used for the commission of any offence or is not one regarding which any offence has been committed. Section 517 as amended by Act XVIII of 1923 empowers the criminal Court to deliver the property or document to any person “claiming to be entitled” to its possession. The Court has therefore jurisdiction to decide the question of possession. In normal circumstances, on acquittal or discharge the property would be returned to the person from whom it was seized. But when there are circumstances showing that the person concerned either has not claimed the property as his, specifically, or when there are no grounds to hold that the property could belong to the accused or the evidence in the case would suggest that the property belongs to the complainant or when the discharge or the acquittal is based upon inadequacy or doubtfulness of the proof offered, the Magistrate has certainly got a discretion to return the property to the complainant and in such a case it may even be unreasonable to return the property to the accused persons. It depends on the facts of each case. No doubt, it is not the function of a criminal Court to decide nice questions involving principles of civil law if there is a dispute between rival parties claiming a return of the property. Some of the decisions have gone to the extent of holding that the Court is entitled in such cases to keep the property in its custody pending the decision of a competent civil Court. Some of the decisions have gone to the extent of holding that the Court is entitled in such cases to keep the property in its custody pending the decision of a competent civil Court. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision in Ram Khalawan Ahir v. Tulsi Telini A.I.R. 1924 Cal. 1040. So it is not imperative that in all cases of acquittal the Magistrate shall return the property to the accused as the learned Magistrate seems to think. In this case there are facts and circumstances which might suggest that the property does not belong to the accused and belongs to the complainant. As I have stated before, Accused 1 and 2 had met P.W. 1 at the Jacob's Hotel. The evidence of P.W. 11, the hotel attendant corroborates the evidence of P.W. 1. The probabilites of the case also indicate that P.W. 1 had the currency notes with him and that he had handed over the fifty hundred rupee notes to the first accused as alleged. There is also the subsequent conduct of the first accused spoken to by P.Ws. 2, 3 and 4, the Bank officials that the first accused hurriedly was changing the hundred rupee notes into small denomination notes immediately after the alleged incident. There was also the evidence offered by the confessional statements of the accused persons. The confessional statement may not strictly be admissible in a trial of the accused for having committed an offence. But in proceedings under section 517 which are more in the nature of proceedings analogous to civil proceedings in which the question of guilt of the accused is not to be determined the Court will be justified in acting on those confessions. Reference may be made to the decision in Mahanta Singh Natha Singh v. Het Ram Pakhar A.I.R. 1954 Punj. 27; Pohlu v. Emperor A.I.R. 1943 Lah. 312 and Timapa Shanbhog v. Maneshvar Kashi (1884) I.L.R. 9 Bom. 181. These are matters which really merit consideration. As none of these factors have been considered at all by the learned Magistrate, probably not argued before him, the order of the learned Magistrate has to be set aside. 27; Pohlu v. Emperor A.I.R. 1943 Lah. 312 and Timapa Shanbhog v. Maneshvar Kashi (1884) I.L.R. 9 Bom. 181. These are matters which really merit consideration. As none of these factors have been considered at all by the learned Magistrate, probably not argued before him, the order of the learned Magistrate has to be set aside. The case will go back to the learned Magistrate who will issue notice to the complainant and Accused 1 and 5 and after considering the evidence that has already been adduced in the case and such further evidence which may hereafter be produced by the parties, pass appropriate orders regarding the disposal of the property. Nothing that has been stated in this order is intended to fetter the discretion of the learned Magistrate in appraising the effect of the evidence that would be produced before him and passing necessary orders in the matter. In the result, the order under section 517, Criminal Procedure Code, regarding the disposal of the currency notes produced before the Court is set aside. The case is sent back to the lower Court for fresh hearing and disposal according to law The revision petition is allowed to this extent. M.C.M.-----Appeal dismissed and petition allowed.