Judgment : Oral Judgment: 1. Appellant is aggrieved by part of the order dated 5.3.2009 made by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-6, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 318 of 2008 whereby muddemal viz. cash worth Rs. 24,865,000/- including the amount of Rs. 100,000/-seized from the bank of appellant has been allowed to be retained by PW 1 Manoj Ratan Agrawal, complainant (respondent no.2 herein) which amount was initially released in favour of said Manoj by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur vide order dated 24.3.2008 on his supratnama. 2. Even though the appellant was neither a complainant nor any of the accused persons, it would be useful to narrate the prosecution story in brief for the purpose of deciding the present appeal. 3. Respondent no. 2 Manoj lodged a report with Police Station, Butibori, Nagpur alleging that while he was coming from Chandrapur by car carrying with him cash of Rs. 35 lacs, three persons came in one car and looted that amount from him on the point of knife. On the basis of his report, Butibori Police registered offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code against four unknown persons and started investigating into the matter. Police arrested Manojsingh, son of appellant, alleging that he had hatched conspiracy along with the driver on the car of complainant and in that, other accused persons looted cash amount from the complainant. Manojsingh made disclosure statement that he received Rs. 1,50,000/- from the ransacked amount out of which Rs. 100,000/- were kept in the bank account of appellant. Police seized amount of Rs. 100,000/- from the bank account of appellant. Total amount seized was Rs. 24,86,500/-which, as aforesaid, was released in favour of complainant Manoj Agrawal by the learned Magistrate on his supratnama vide order dated 24.3.2008. 4. It is claimed by the appellant that on his retirement, he received Rs. 99,900/- towards leave encashment on 26.2.2008 and by adding Rs. 100/- to it, he made a deposit of Rs. 100,000/- in his SB Account No. 11205044740 with the State Bank of India, Chhaoni Branch, Nagpur on 27.2.2008 and that amount did not form the part of alleged booty out of the incident dated 24.2.2008. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order part of which is impugned before this Court as also relevant papers. 6. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and order part of which is impugned before this Court as also relevant papers. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that no notice of hearing was given by the learned Magistrate to the appellant before releasing the amount on the supratnama of complainant Manoj Agrawal. He further made a grievance that learned trial Judge also did not hear appellant even though an order was made on the application of the appellant that his application (exhibit 26) would be considered at the time of conclusion of trial. He points out that appellant’s son Manojsingh had examined in defence Mukunda, cashier in the Police Department who had deposed that the amount of Rs. 99,900/- was released to the appellant on 26.2.2008 towards leave encashment. However, the trial Court did not consider that evidence and has mechanically allowed the complainant to retain the entire amount including the amount of Rs. 100,000/-. Learned counsel has canvassed that the amount of Rs. 100,000/-ought to have been released in favour of the appellant in view of the aforesaid facts coupled with the fact that the trial has culminated in acquittal of all the accused including the son of appellant (Manojsingh). 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no. 1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2, on the other hand, have supported impugned part of the order. Learned APP has taken me through the seizure memo and confessional statements of accused Manojsingh and appellant which are not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Amount of Rs. 100,000/- was seized by the police under seizure memo (exhibit 70) from the appellant from his bank account. Appellant in his statement dated 8.3.2008 confessed that accused Manojsingh (his son) had deposited amount of Rs. 100,000/- in his bank account under the guise that it was “admission money”. Accused Manojsingh in his confessional statement stated that he had received Rs. 1,50,000/- towards his share in booty out of which he had deposited a sum of Rs. 100,000/- in the bank account of his father (appellant); Rs. 40,000/- were given by him to his friend Sachin Pawar and Rs. 10,000/- were spent by him. 9. Learned trial Court in the present case has disbelieved the defence of accused no. 2 Manojsingh that the amount of Rs. 100,000/- in the bank account of his father (appellant); Rs. 40,000/- were given by him to his friend Sachin Pawar and Rs. 10,000/- were spent by him. 9. Learned trial Court in the present case has disbelieved the defence of accused no. 2 Manojsingh that the amount of Rs. 1 lac was belonging to his father for the reasons that (1) accused no.2 had not examined his father (appellant) and (2) evidence of Cashier Mukunda was not specific and categorical. At the conclusion of his detailed judgment and order, learned Sessions Judge has observed in paragraph 41 thus : “41. In this case for the reasons mentioned supra, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that in the alleged dacoity amount of Rs. 35 lacs was looted, which was belonging to Shri Siddhabali Ispat Co. of P.W. 1 and P.W. 17. However, there is no cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence adduced by the prosecution to connect accused no. 1 to 7 with the charges levelled against them. In this case the evidence is not available above the level of sufficiency. Prosecution evidence in its total effect does not prove that accused no. 1 to 7 hatched a plan of dacoity for looting Rs. 35 lacs of P.W. 1 and by conspiring with each other they committed the abovesaid offence. I therefore, hold that prosecution has failed to prove charges levelled against the accused no. 1 to 7....” 10. It is settled position of law that when an accused is given benefit of doubt and acquitted of theft, it cannot be said that he was necessarily in lawful possession of the property which was the subject-matter of theft and he is not, therefore, entitled to recover the property. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court by the learned counsel for appellant in Pushkar Singh v. State of Madhya Bharat & anr reported in AIR 1963 SC 508 is of no avail to the appellant. In the said case, money alleged to have been stolen from the complainant, was found to be belonging to the accused and, therefore, it was ordered to be returned to him. In the present, it has not been found that the amount of Rs. 100,000/- was belonging to the appellant. On the other hand, it was found to be belonging to P.W.1 and P.W. 17. In the present, it has not been found that the amount of Rs. 100,000/- was belonging to the appellant. On the other hand, it was found to be belonging to P.W.1 and P.W. 17. Viewed from any angle, therefore, impugned order needs no interference and appeal deserves to be dismissed. No prejudice could, therefore, be said to have been caused to appellant if he was not heard on application (exhibit 26) at the time of final hearing of the trial and if no separate order was passed on the said application. 11. Before parting with the judgment, it is necessary to make mention of the settled legal position that an order for delivery of property to any person which the Court makes under the provisions of Section 452 Cr.P.C., is based only on the immediate right to possession and does not and could not conclude the right or title of any person to the ownership of the property concerned. It is always open to the real owner to set the appropriate law in motion to establish his title to the property and recover it, if such a contingency exists, from the person in whose custody the property stands delivered. The orders passed under the Code do not conclude rights or title to the property. Under Section 452 Cr.P.C., Criminal Court is not to decide intricate question of ownership of property which is the domain of Civil Court. See: C. Arumugan (Dr) v. Parasamal reported in 1989 (2) Crimes 409 and Beni Dan v. Laxmichand reported in 1996 Cri.L.J. 1191. It would thus be open for the appellant in the present case to approach the appropriate Civil Court for recovery of money, if so advised. 12. In the result, appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is granted in favour of appellant in terms of observations made in paragraph 11 above.