JUDGMENT Hon’ble M.K. Mittal, J.—This appeal has been filed under Section 454, Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order dated 24th July, 2006 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C. No. 3), Bijnor, in Sessions Trial No. 223/2000, whereby he directed to forfeit the case property in favour of the State and further directed for its auction and for deposit of the sale proceeds with the State exchequer. By this judgment he acquitted the accused. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant Pradeep Kumar filed a first information report on 10.9.1999 at 4.45 p.m. registered at crime No. 702/1999, at police station Nahtoor, District Bijnor, alleging that at 4 p.m. the same day when he, his wife Smt. Vandana, wife of his younger brother Smt. Mira his mother Smt. Veerbala and Achayara Naresh Kumur Ji were present at the house, 4 miscreants suddenly appeared. Two of them were armed with knife and two had tamanchas. They frightened the informant and others and confined them in the bathroom. They also took the ornaments that the ladies were wearing and also from the almirah. The age group or miscreants was between 20-30 years and they could be identified if seen again. The miscreants took ornaments weighing about 45 tolas and about Rs. 30,000 with them. When their servant came he opened the door of bathroom and then they came out. 3. Pradeep Kumar lodged the written report but in report the details of the looted ornaments were not given and a separate list was given on 10th September, 1999, showing the details of the ornaments and other items that were looted. Informant gave an application on 1.11.1999 to the Station Officer, Nahtoor alleging that he his mother, wife and wife of his younger brother alongwith his cousin Sudhir Kumar were going to Bijnor from Nahtoor and when they reached near Jhari bus stand, they saw 4 persons and identified them as miscreants who had committed loot in their house. On seeing the miscreants, at the tea stall near bus stand, the informant immediately went to the police check post and informed constables Rajendra, Kapil and Ratan Singh and took them with him and came at the tea stall where at about 11.30 a.m. all the 4 persons were arrested, They disclosed their names as Shamim, Javed and Mohd. Gaji and Ijhar. Shamim was wearing golden chain looted from his house. Gaji and Ijhar. Shamim was wearing golden chain looted from his house. Javed was also having a wrist watch and pair or silver pajeb was recovered from Gaji. All the 4 persons were taken to the police station and recovery memo was prepared and the recovered items were kept in sealed packets. On 2.11.1999 when Station Officer Rajendra Singh was present at the police check post Nahtoor, he was informed at about 6 p.m. that a suspected accused of case crime No. 702/1999 under Sections 392/411, I.P.C was present at the Haldar road tempo stand. At that time Pradeep Kumar the informant also reached there. When they proceeded towards Hari Shankar Singh, he tried to run away but was apprehended at 6.30 p.m. and one titan wrist watch was recovered from his possession. This watch was identified by Pradeep Kumar as of his brother Rakesh and he further stated that it was looted from his house. The accused was taken into custody. Again on 1st December, 1999 when Station Officer Rajendra Singh and police constables and the accused Noor @ Nana came to Kasba Jhalu in connection with the remand of the accused, Sudhir Agarwal and Pradeep Kumar came there on motorcycle at 4.30 p.m. They were taken by the police party to the house of the accused Noor @ Nana where some silver and golden ornaments were recovered by him by digging one feet earth in his courtyard under pakar tree. Pradeep Kumar identified those items as the looted property. On 3rd December 1999 the recovery was also made at the pointing out of the accused Rashid from the courtyard of his house and at that time also Pradeep Kumar was present who identified the ornaments as the Iooted property. After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons. Charges were framed but the accused pleaded not guilty. 4. Seven persons were tried by the prosecution. In support of its case the prosecution examined the informant Pradeep Kumar PW 1, Sudhir Kumar PW 2, Smt. Vandana PW 3, Smt. Veer Bala PW 4, Smt. Mira Agarwal PW 5 and Rajesh Kumar Agarwal PW 6 as witnesses of fact and occurrence. The prosecution also examined constable Ratan Singh PW 7, Inspector Bahadur Singh Chauhan PW 8 and Inspector Rajendra Singh PW 9. PW 7 and PW 9 are the witnesses of recovery whereas PW 8 is the Investigating Officer. The prosecution also examined constable Ratan Singh PW 7, Inspector Bahadur Singh Chauhan PW 8 and Inspector Rajendra Singh PW 9. PW 7 and PW 9 are the witnesses of recovery whereas PW 8 is the Investigating Officer. The accused were examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. and they denied having committed any loot. They also denied that any property was recovered from their possession or at their pointing out. 5. In this case all the 6 witnesses (PW1 to PW6) of fact and occurrence turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. PW1 stated that loot was committed in his house by 4 miscreants and he had lodged the report Ex. Ka-1. Ornaments and cash were looted from his house. He had also given a list. According to this witness, on 1.11.1999 at about 11.30 a.m., when they reached near the bus stand they saw that police had already arrested 4 persons. He was asked to give an application and also to sign. He or any of his family member did not identify any of the accused. He also stated that they (the miscreants) were not present in the Court when he was being examined. Regarding the recovery from the accused persons, he stated that he could not identify the badmash from whom the recovery was made and that they were not present in the Court at the time of the trial. He alsostated that on 2.11.1999 when he reached Haldor crossing police had already arrested a person. He identified the watch but not the accused in the Court. However, he admitted that he had signed Fard baramdagi on 1st December, 1999. When he and Sudhir Agarwal reached Jhalu Kasba they saw that the police party had already arrested a person with ornaments. No recovery was made in his presence. He also did not identify the accused from whom that recovery was made, although he admitted his signature on the recovery fard. He was cross-examined by the prosecution and he stated that he had not written the application Ex. Ka-3 and the names of the accused Shamim, Javed, Gaji and Ijhar were written by the police itself. He also stated that it was wrong to say that there was any collusion with the accused persons and was not identifying them. He denied that the accused had participated in the loot and that looted property was recovered from them. 6. Ka-3 and the names of the accused Shamim, Javed, Gaji and Ijhar were written by the police itself. He also stated that it was wrong to say that there was any collusion with the accused persons and was not identifying them. He denied that the accused had participated in the loot and that looted property was recovered from them. 6. PW 2 Sudhir Kumar has stated that on 1.11.1999 when he was coming in car with Pradeep Kumar and others and reached the bus stand they were told by the police that they had arrested the accused and had recovered the looted property. Pradeep Kumar and others identified the property. He had also signed the application Ex. Ka-3. On 1st December, 1999 when he was going with Pradeep Kumar and reached Jhalu crossing the police stopped them and took them to a house and some ornaments were brought from inside and were shown to them and they were also asked to sign the fard which he did. He did not identify any of the accused who were arrested or from whom recovery was made. He stated in cross-examination that the recovery fard was not written in his presence and that he had signed a blank paper. 7. Smt. Vandana PW 3, Smt. Veer Bala PW 4 and Smt. Mira PW 5 also did not identify the accused persons who were arrested at the bus stand and said that these accused persons had not participated in the loot and that no recovery was made from them. Similar statement has been rnade Rajesh Kumar PW 6. 8. Learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidence of these witnesses came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish that any loot was committed by the accused persons at the house of the informant that any looted property was recovered from the accused persons. He also concluded that according to witnesses no accused was arrested in their presence and no recovery was made in their presence. The case property was not having any specific marks and it was not put up for test identification and was not compared with the list given by the informant. It could not be proved that any property was recovered from the accused or that any property was connected with the loot. In this case the accused persons also did not claim the case property. It could not be proved that any property was recovered from the accused or that any property was connected with the loot. In this case the accused persons also did not claim the case property. Consequently the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused persons and directed to forfeit the case property as stated above. The informant being aggrieved by the order of forfeiture of the case property, has come up in this appeal. 9. I have heard Sri K.M. Garg learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri S.L. Kesarwani learned Counsel for the State and have perused the Trial Court record. 10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Trial Court has erred in forfeiting the case property. According to him it belongs to the informant and was looted from his house and that no one else has claimed the property. He also contended that the Court should have compared the property with the list given by the complainant. He has also prayed that the case property is liable to be released in favour of the informant. 11. Learned Counsel for the State has contended that the learned Trial Court has rightly directed to forfeit the property because the case property has not been proved to be the looted property. According to the informant and the other witnesses the accused who faced trial did not commit any loot and no property was recovered from them. According to the learned Counsel for the State, the general rule is that if the accused are acquitted the property is returned to the person from whose possession it is recovered. In this case the accused did not claim property and therefore, it has been rightly directed to be forfeited and auctioned. 12. In this case the conduct of the informant and his witnesses has not been above board. The criminal proceedings were initiated on the basis of the information given by the appellant Pradeep Kumar. According to the informant and other witnesses 4 persons were present at the bus stand and they immediately informed the police personnel and with their help those 4 persons were arrested and an application Ex. Ka-3 was also given. Later the other accused were also arrested and recovery was made and the informant/witnesses were present at that occasion also. According to the informant and other witnesses 4 persons were present at the bus stand and they immediately informed the police personnel and with their help those 4 persons were arrested and an application Ex. Ka-3 was also given. Later the other accused were also arrested and recovery was made and the informant/witnesses were present at that occasion also. Taking a somersault the informant/and other witnesses changed their stand and denied any complicity of the accused persons in the alleged loot or the recovery. The informant has come with the case that only 4 persons had committed loot at his house. At his pointing 4 persons were arrested who were identified by him as the alleged miscreants. Subsequently he denied their involvement and it shows that the loot was not committed by these four accused persons. It is not the case of the appellant that the loot was committed by any other person. The case property as recovered from the accused persons was identified by the informant to be his property. But during trial the informant and other witnesses denied that any recovery of the case property was made from these accused persons. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly concluded that the case property was not the looted property as it was neither looted by the accused persons nor it was recovered from their possession. 13. Section 452, Cr.P.C. clause 1 provides that when an inquiry or trial in any criminal Court is concluded, the Court may make such order as it thinks fit for the disposal, by destruction, confiscation or delivery to any person claiming to be entitled to possession thereof or otherwise of any property or document produced before it or in its custody or regarding which any offence appears to have been committed or which has been used for the commission of any offence. It shows that in order to attract Section 452 it is essential to establish that (1) property has been produced before the Court or is in its custody, (2) property must be the subject matter of an offence which appears to have been committed, (3) has been used for the commission of an offence. 14. It shows that in order to attract Section 452 it is essential to establish that (1) property has been produced before the Court or is in its custody, (2) property must be the subject matter of an offence which appears to have been committed, (3) has been used for the commission of an offence. 14. The scope of Section 452, Cr.P.C. was considered in the case of Govind Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others, 1986 CrLJ 1495 by this Court and it was held that where the disputed ornaments were not proved to be stolen property and prosecution failed to prove the dishonest retention of the ornaments by the accused, and further failed to prove that the retention of those ornaments by co-accused was dishonest so as to attract Section 411, I.P.C. Section 452, Cr.P.C., would not be attracted and therefore, while disposing of the appeal it was open to the Appellate Court to have ordered its return to the person from whose possession it had been recovered. Further where the accused did not admit the recovery of ornaments from his possession the order to forfeit the property to the State was proper. In that case the accused was convicted under Section 411, I.P.C. by the learned Magistrate and in appeal the conviction order was set aside and the accused was acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. Some of the ornaments were claimed by one of the accused and they were directed to be returned to him whereas the other ornaments were directed to be forfeited to the State. While dismissing Criminal Revision filed by complainant, the above order was passed by this Court. Similar is the situation in the instant case. The ornaments claimed by the appellant have not been proved to be the looted property. They have also not been recovered from the possession of the accused persons. Under Section 452, Cr.P.C. only possession has to be seen and not the title. The appellant could not show that the case property was the subject matter of the offence. 15. The accused persons were arrested at the instance of the informant and his witnesses. They languished in jail and also faced the agony of the trial. But the informant and his witnesses did not support their prosecution case. The appellant could not show that the case property was the subject matter of the offence. 15. The accused persons were arrested at the instance of the informant and his witnesses. They languished in jail and also faced the agony of the trial. But the informant and his witnesses did not support their prosecution case. They have utterly failed to prove that the case property is the looted property and in the circumstances the case having resulted in acquittal and the case property having not been claimed by the persons from whom it was recovered, the learned Trial Court was right in directing the forfeiture of the case property. 16. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order and the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. ————