ORDER R.P. Gupta, J. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20-7-1998 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur in Criminal Appeal No. 188/91 directing that the seized coal, which was seized from the brickkiln area of the petitioner as far back as 3-12-1998 in connection with investigation of Criminal Case No. 295/89 which was tried before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur be released to respondent No. 1. It was seized on 3-12-1988 on allegations by Security Officer of respondent No. 1 South Eastern Coal Fields Limited (SECL) that it was stolen from the colliery of SECL at Bishrampur which the present petitioner (the accused) was storing illegally. This petitioner was tried as an accused on charge u/s 411, Indian Penal Code, but, in the aforesaid criminal case, the Judicial Magistrate First Class vide his judgment dated 30-11-1991, acquitted him holding that there was no definite evidence beyond doubt that he had kept this coal knowing it to be stolen property belonging to the complainant. The coal was about 180 tons, carried in 18 trucks at the time of seizure vide memo Ex. P/2. The accused, present petitioner, applied for release of this coal to him after his acquittal as acquittal had remained unchallenged. This application was moved on 12-12-1988 and decided in favour of the present petitioner by the Magistrate vide order dated 30-11-1991. The respondent No. 1 SECL directed appeal before the Sessions Court which was filed as Cr. Appeal No. 188/91 and decided on 20-7-1998 by Additional Sessions Judge, Surguja. The appeal was allowed and the coal was directed to be given to SECL. The petitioner has felt aggrieved and approaches this Court in present revision petition. The main contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the trial Court which was trying the charge u/s 411, Indian Penal Code, about this coal, did not find it to be stolen property. No finding is given that the coal belonged actually to SECL. The only finding is that it was not established that the coal was in possession of the accused as stolen property knowing it to be so. No finding is given that the coal belonged actually to SECL. The only finding is that it was not established that the coal was in possession of the accused as stolen property knowing it to be so. The argument is that, in view of this the person who was in possession of the coal at the time of seizure was entitled to its restoration and it is further urged that the trial Magistrate, while passing the order of giving possession to the petitioner accused has given various reasons also that the coal belonged to petitioner or could belong to him or that it was not established that the coal belonged to SECL. It is urged that the approach of the appellate Court is mainly based on the evidence of General Manager of the Company who appeared as PW-8 and evidence of a chemical Analyst of the Company who had analysed a sample of about 5 kg. of coal and reached a conclusion that it was B grade coal which is also not a steam coal. The seized coal was also described as B grade coal at the time of seizure vide seizure memo Ex. P/2. Even accused case was that he had purchased 500 tons D grade coal as far back as during the period 1986-1987 and out of which he could consume 257MT of the coal for preparing bricks and rest of the coal remained in stock and that coal had been taken away by the police on the complaint of officer of SECL. The appellate Court found that since the accused according to his own case had purchased only D grade coal which is also known as stag and which is mostly in form of powder, while the seized coal was found in lumps at least 70% and was described as a B grade coal by the General Manager on examination also by the expert analyst, it could not be coal purchased by accused, it was something else and so it belonged to petitioner company, and hence the appeal was allowed and possession was ordered to be given to the company. From a perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court, it becomes clear that the appellate Court has proceeded as if it was deciding the title of the coal. This coal was produced before the Court as subject of theft. A first information report Ex. From a perusal of the judgment of the appellate Court, it becomes clear that the appellate Court has proceeded as if it was deciding the title of the coal. This coal was produced before the Court as subject of theft. A first information report Ex. P/11 had been made by a Security Staff of the Company on 3-12-1988 that 7 cyclists were noticed taking 7 bags of coal from the stock of the Company and when followed they went to kiln of this accused and threw the coal there and escaped. A stack of coal of B grade was noticed which the security officer found to be of B grade, hence, the report was made that all the stack was the stock of the Company's stolen coal, with the accused. The stress of evidence, during the trial on behalf of the prosecution, was that this coal was B grade and so it belonged to the Company. The accused had led evidence of purchase of D grade coal to the extent of 500 tons. The purchase confirmation voucher is from Ketka Colliery. The company's colliery is at Bishrampur wherefrom this coal was allegedly stolen. The law about release or possession of property which is seized as stolen property u/s 452, Criminal Procedure Code is that the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal or deliver to any person claiming to be entitled to possession of the property produced before the Court or regarding which an offence appears to have been committed. This order is to be passed on conclusion of the trial. The most relevant words are "delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof' for deciding whether the person is entitled to delivery of such property about which offence of receiving it as stolen property is tried. The Court has to proceed on prima facie evidence and not to act as Civil Court deciding question of title. When property is seized from a person who is in possession, ordinarily it will be released back to him if the offence is found not established in respect of the property and no finding is given that although property belonged to the complainant the accused did not know that it was stolen. If the finding is of the later type, then, of course, the complainant would be entitled to possession of the property. If the finding is of the later type, then, of course, the complainant would be entitled to possession of the property. In the present case that finding had not been reached and the property was seized from the premises of the accused. This leads to the question whether on the basis of evidence regarding grading of the coal, it could be said that the Company respondent No. 1 was entitled to release of the coal in his favour as against the person from whose possession it was seized. If we go by evidence of the General Manager it could raise inference both ways. From any colliery coal of various grades can be mined. From a colliery where mostly steam coal is recovered, even stag coal can also be recovered or mixed. Similarly vice versa is also there. The General Manager even says that even a chemical analyst will not be able to say for definite if an entire big stack of coal was of a particular grade merely because the sample taken was merely a part like 5 kg. The contention of Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 is that this accused never purchased B grade coal and his documents show that he purchased D grade coal. In these circumstances even if some part or major part of the coal seized was of B grade, it should be assumed that this belonged to this Company, respondent No. 1, mined from Bishrampur. In deciding entitlement to possession u/s 452, Criminal Procedure Code, these fine considerations as to wherefrom the coal might have been mined (for which there is no certainty) or how the accused acquired the coal, cannot be gone into. The Court has to broadly see if possession should be delivered to somebody other than the person from whose possession it was seized on the basis of available evidence. The approach of the appellate Court has been that since the accused claims to have purchased D grade coal and according to the report of analyst and the statement of General Manager, it was B grade coal, it must have been coal of this Company and not otherwise. In view of this, the approach of the appellate Court was not justified. In view of this, the approach of the appellate Court was not justified. The simple fact that the accused had purchased certain D Grade of coal, (which could also be mixed with other grades of coal), would not establish that the coal must have belonged to the Company because most of it might have been of higher grade as stated by General Manager who had only given an opinion evidence on visual feature of coal, or even on basis of the opinion evidence of the analyst. Nobody has seen or alleged how the entire coal stack reached there. The reasoning of the trial Court was that seven bags of coal carried on 7 cycles cannot create a stack of 180 MT (metric tons). It cannot be brushed aside. The prosecution was liable to prove that theft of company's stocks had been committed to such large quantities by some thieves or gang of thieves and stack reached the brick-kiln of the accused. There was no evidence that the Company had noticed depletion of its coal stacks, at some stage. In these circumstances in the view of this Court, the ordinary rule to be followed was, that the person in possession, from whom immovable property was seized, shall be entitled for its release when it is not established that the property was subject matter of theft, or that it belong to another. The approach of the appellate Court is, therefore, legally erroneous. this Court had not to enter into finding of fact as to whom coal belonged, on preponderance of evidence. The question of title even to movable property remains open after an order u/s 452, Criminal Procedure Code and the Criminal Court decision as to who is entitled to possession is not final regarding its title. The aggrieved party can establish title in a civil suit. With these observations, this revision petition is accepted and the order of the appellate Court is set aside. The order of the Magistrate is restored. Final Result : Allowed