JUDGMENT : 1. By this Revision Petition, the petitioner( original complainant) in Regular Criminal Case No. 198/1993 tried by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, who, while passing the judgment and order dated 4th December 1999, while disposing of seized property in view of Section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code ( in short “Cr.P.C.) directed that seized property be retained by complainant Jagmohansingh Lakhbirsingh Gill (the petitioner herein). It appears that during pendency of criminal case, the seized property was handed over to the complainant upon Supratnama, executed by the complainant. 2. Being aggrieved by the order regarding final disposal Sampatlal Budhmal Soni (original accused no.4) challenged the order regarding disposal of property by way of Criminal Appeal No.1/2000 which was decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia by judgment and order dated 26th September 2003 whereby the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the trial Court in Criminal Case No. 198/1993 regarding final disposal of the property (2 gold ingots) of 20 gms. each was set aside and the complainant was directed to return the property to the Court which he had received on Supratnama pending disposal of the criminal trial, further, directing that the retained property be given to accused no.4 -Sampatlal Soni and he shall retain the property permanently. 3. The petitioner ( complainant ) aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Appellate Court preferred this Revision. 4. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor Shri S.Y.Deopujari for respondent -State, brought to my notice the observations made by the learned Magistrate in paragraph 11 of the judgment dated 4th December, 1999 passed in Criminal Case No.198/1993. Reference was made to the Disclosure Statement made by accused Ramesh on 14.5.1993 regarding selling of golden and silver ornaments to accused no.4 Sampatlal, as also statement (Exh.65) and subsequent recovery consequent to disclosure statement under Panchnama (Exh.66) and furthermore disclosure statement by accused Hitendra on 23rd May 19943 as per Exh.69 and consequent recovery under Panchnama (Exh.70). This appears in the evidence of PSI Selokar as also in the evidence of Investigating Officer. 5. This appears in the evidence of PSI Selokar as also in the evidence of Investigating Officer. 5. It appears that the Appellate Court was pleased to set aside the order regarding disposal of the property mainly on the ground that the complainant was not examined in the case to identify the property as his own and that trial Court should have recorded finding that the property seized from the appellant (Sampatlal Budhmal Soni) is stolen property and that it has been property owned by the complainant. 6. It appears that the Appellate Court failed to take note of Disclosure statement pursuant to which the property was recovered and handed over to the complainant on Supratnama pending disposal of the criminal trial. The Disclosure statement which is confessional in nature, though inadmissible evidence in criminal trial, would be admissible in inquiry to determine as to who would be the best entitled to possession of the seized property. The proceedings in this regard ought to be considered as quasi civil in nature for disposal of the property finally under section 452 of the Cr.P.C. The rule of burden of proof as in criminal trial shall not apply as to final disposal of the seized property as it relates to immediate right to possession. It is true that such order would not be conclusive as to the right or title to the ownership of property disposed of under section 452 Cr.P.C. as it is always subject to decision of the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the order which was passed by the learned Magistrate at the conclusion of the trial directing the seized property to be retained by the complainant particularly when it was in possession of the complainant on the basis of supratnama executed by him pending the trial ought not to have been set aside for the aforesaid reason. The appropriate remedy for the accused who wanted to challenge the final order regarding disposal of property u/s 452 of the Cr.P.C. could have been to claim by way of independent civil suit claiming right, title or ownership of the property. Considering that the learned Magistrate was legal, proper and correct to pass an order u/s. 452 Cr.P.C. regarding final disposal of the property at conclusion of trial it ought not to have been interfered with by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia, in appeal. 7. Considering that the learned Magistrate was legal, proper and correct to pass an order u/s. 452 Cr.P.C. regarding final disposal of the property at conclusion of trial it ought not to have been interfered with by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Gondia, in appeal. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, I think that no exceptional case was made out before the Appellate Court below pointing out any manifest and patent error of law resulting into flagrant miscarriage of justice. In my view, therefore, the order which was passed by the trial Court must be restored as it appears prima facie legal, proper and correct. Hence I pass the following order : The order passed in Criminal Appeal No.1/2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia dated 5.1.2000 is quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gondia in Regular Criminal Case No.198/1993 regarding retention of the seized property by the complainant stands restored. The Revision Application is allowed accordingly. Revision Application allowed.