Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. 1. This Appeal challenges a part of the judgment of the Sessions Division, Vellore made in S.C.No.8 of 2005 dated 25.03.2006 whereby the Trial Court in the final part of the judgment had issued a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned to handing over the properties viz., M.Os.5 to 25, 33 to 35 to the legal representatives of one Raman Naicker on production of the Legal Heirship Certificate. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. The Trial Court, on completion of trial as against the first respondent/accused, on the charges leveled against him for murder on two counts and also for the offence under Section 392 read with 397, IPC, found him not guilty and acquitted the first respondent/accused from the above charges. While doing so, the learned Trial Judge has directed delivery or the jewels to the heirs of the deceased Raman Naicker on production of the heirship certificate thereon. 4. As could be seen from the available materials, it was the case of double murder and the occurrence has taken place on 111. 2003 at about 10.30 p.m. when the first deceased Raman Naicker and the second deceased Sampoornam were staying in the house. Though number of witnesses were examined, the Trial Court was not ready to believe their evidence and recorded the order of acquittal. While the Trial Court made an order of acquittal, a direction was given to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to return M.Os.No.5 to 25, 33 to 35 to the legal heirs of Raman Naicker. Aggrieved over that part of the judgment of issuing a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to deliver M.Os.No.5 to 25 and 33 to 35 to the heirs of Raman Naicker, the appellant, son of the second deceased Sampoornam has brought forth this Appeal. 5. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit, in the instant case, the occurrence has taken place in the house of Sampoornam, the second deceased when she was staying with Raman Naicker at 10.30 p.m. on 111. 2003. M.Os.33 to 35 jewels which were worn by Sampooran at the time of occurrence were recovered from her body. Following the post mortem, they were produced before the Court. 2003. M.Os.33 to 35 jewels which were worn by Sampooran at the time of occurrence were recovered from her body. Following the post mortem, they were produced before the Court. Insofar as M.Os.No.5 to 25 were concerned, the prosecution came forward with a case that they were actually stolen from the house of Sampoornam. They were recovered from the accused/appellant but the Trial Court was not ready to believe the evidence putforth by the prosecution as to the alleged confessional statement and recovery of M.Os.No.5 to 25 from the accused/appellant. It was also not the case of the appellant before the Trial Court that M.Os.No.5 to 25 belonged to him not even a suggestion was put to any one of the witnesses and the accused was not questioned regarding the same while questioning under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Hence, it is quite clear that all those jewels belonged to the second deceased Sampoornam. Hence, on, the death of Sampoornam, it must go to the appellant, son of Sampoornam. Under such circumstances that part of the judgment has got to be set aside and necessary direction has got to be issued. 6. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondent/accused. .7. According to the counsel for the first respondent/accused, in the instant case, it is evident that M.Os.No.5 to 25 were actually recovered from the accused following the confessional statement. The Trial Court was not ready to believe that part of the evidence. In such situation, all the M.Os.Nos.5 to 25 must be directed to be handed over to the accused who is the first respondent herein. Added further learned counsel the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecution at the time of cross-examination have categorically deposed that there was a case pending between the accused family and Raman Naicker and apart from that, the position of law would also indicate that in such a situation when the accused was acquitted of all the charges, there must be a direction for the return of the jewels to the accused/respondent from whom the prosecution claimed to have recovered those materials. Hence, necessary orders have got to be issued. 8. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 9. Hence, necessary orders have got to be issued. 8. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 9. As could be seen from the available materials, though the first respondent/accused stood charged for murder (2 counts), he was acquitted of the charges since the Trial Court was not ready to believe the case of the prosecution projected through its evidence. Insofar as the M.Os.No.33 to 35 are concerned, they were all jewels which were worn by Sampoornam and recovered at the time of post-mortem. Hence, there could not be any impediment in making an order for return of those jewels to the appellant who claim to be the son of Sampoornam. Insofar as the other properties are concerned viz., M.Os.No.5 to 25, as could be seen from the list of material Objects produced before the Trial Court, except M.O.No.25, M.Os.No.5 to 24 are found to be jewls. Apart from the same, even as per the prosecution case, it is an admitted position that Sampoornam was staying with Raman Naicker during the relevant time and also during the relevant date. It is true that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused. So far as the jewels are concerned, it would belong to a lady. Apart from that, a suggestion was made to the investigator that all those jewels were actually recovered from the place of occurrence in which a case was foisted against the respondent/accused. This suggestion would go to show that all these M.Os. were actually recovered from the place of occurrence. .10. Added circumstance is that regarding the same, the respondent did not make any suggestion to the Investigating Officer or to any one of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. The first respondent did not disclose whether M.Os.No.5 to 24 belonged to him and did not make any claim that they belonged to him at the time of questioning under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Under such circumstances, the contention putforth by the learned counsel for the respondent that those jewels must be handed over to the accused/first respondent, cannot be countenanced. In a case like this, where the accused was acquitted of the charges, the Court cannot merely order for return of the jewels to the accused. In a case like this, where the accused was acquitted of the charges, the Court cannot merely order for return of the jewels to the accused. For all the reasons stated above and the circumstances also indicate that the jewels belonged to Sampoornam. Insofar as M.Os.No.25 was concerned, they were Currency Notes and they are ordered to be confiscated. So far as M.Os.No.5 to 24 and 33 to 35 are concerned, it has got to be returned to the legal representatives of the deceased Sampoornam. 11. Therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court insofar as the return of property is concerned, it is set aside and a direction is issued to the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate to return the material objects viz., M.os.No.5 to 24 and 33 to 35 to the legal heirs of the deceased Sampoornam on production of the Legal Heirship Certificate. The concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate on verifying and on being satisfied with the Legal Heirship Certificate to be produced by the legal heirs of the deceased Sampoornam, shall return the material objects viz., M.O.Nos.5 to 24 and 33 to 35 to them. M.O.No.25 is ordered to be confiscated. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of.