JUDGMENT:- 1. Being aggrieved by a portion of the judgment in C.C.No.384 of 2013 dated 09.09.2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalaipet, treating the Crime property of Rs.90,000/-, recovered from the accused, as Government property, the defacto complainant has filed the present revision case. 2. Material on record discloses that on the report of the defacto complainant, a case in Cr.No.395 of 2013, was registered against one Sundarraj @ Rasukutti of Virudhunagar District. It is the case of the defacto complainant that a sum of Rs.97,000/- was stolen from his Finance Company. Case registered in Cr.No.395 of 2013, has culminated into C.C.No.384 of 2013, under Sections 454 and 380 IPC. Before the trial Court, eleven witnesses have been examined. Nine documents have been marked. One Material Object has been marked. 3. Upon considering the evidence, submission of the prosecution and the accused, vide judgment dated 09.09.2014, in C.C.No.384 of 2013, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalaipet, has acquitted the accused. The defacto complainant has no grievance over the acquittal. However, he is aggrieved over the conclusion of the learned Judicial Magistrate, that the Government would be the owner of the Crime property viz., the remaining cash of Rs.90,000/-, deposited to the credit of C.C.No.384 of 2013. 4. Assailing the correctness of the said portion of the judgment, Mr.N.Ponraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the accused in his confessional statement dated 17.08.2013, has admitted that he had stolen a sum of Rs.97,000/- from Adhilakshmi Finance Company and after spending a sum of Rs.7,000/-, kept the balance amount of Rs.90,000/- at his house, at Coimbatore and thereafter when the police had recovered Rs.90,000/- from his residence, the Court below, after the conclusion of the trial, ought to have returned the cash to the petitioner, the de facto complainant and the owner of the Adhilakshmi Finance Company. 5. 5. By inviting the attention of this Court to the specific finding of the Court below that a sum of Rs.97,000/- has been stolen from the Finance Company at 4.15.pm on 02.08.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the amount is found to be stolen from the Finance Company and when the accused had not claimed, custody whether interim or even after the conclusion of the case, by filing any application for custody of the property, the Court below ought to have returned the cash to the petitioner. 6. In support of the above contentions, Mr.N.Ponraj, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the findings recorded by the lower Court regarding the commission of theft of Rs.97,000/- from the finance company and the finding recorded at paragraph No.20 of the judgment that there was no claim from the accused. 7. Placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 541 (II), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the portion of the confessional statement of the accused relating to discovery can be considered for the purpose of disposal of the property. 8. Objecting to the relief sought for by the petitioner and inviting the attention of this Court to the cross examination of PW1, Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that PW1 himself has admitted that there was no document to show that a sum of Rs.90,000/-, crime property, was owned by the Finance Company. He also submitted that no Income Tax has been paid for the said amount. 9. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, further added that when PW1, himself was not very sure, as to whether the subject property was stolen from the finance company, no illegality can be attributed to the finding of the Court below, in recording that Government would become the owner of the property. For the above-said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the revision case. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 11. Material on record discloses that on the complaint dated 03.08.2013, preferred by the defacto complainant/petitioner, a case has been registered in Crime No.395 of 2013 under Sections 454 and 380 IPC, on the file of Inspector of Police, Udumalaipet Police Station. One Sundarraj @ Rasukutti, the 2nd respondent has been arrested. 11. Material on record discloses that on the complaint dated 03.08.2013, preferred by the defacto complainant/petitioner, a case has been registered in Crime No.395 of 2013 under Sections 454 and 380 IPC, on the file of Inspector of Police, Udumalaipet Police Station. One Sundarraj @ Rasukutti, the 2nd respondent has been arrested. A sum of Rs.90,000/- has been recovered. Along-with Form-95, money has been produced before the Court. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Court below has categorically recorded that money has been stolen only from the finance company. Finding of the Court below is as follows: “TAMIL” 12. Yet another factor to be considered is that pending trial, vider order in M.P.No.5792 of 2013 in C.C.No.384 of 2013, dated 20.09.2013, interim custody has been given to the defacto complainant. The accused has not claimed either ownership or custody from the inception till the conclusion of the trial. At paragraph No.20, the Court below has recorded as follows: “TAMIL” 13. When the Court below has arrived at a specific finding that a sum of Rs.97,000/- has been stolen from Adhilakshmi Finance at 16.15 on 02.08.2013 and when the accused, himself in his confessional statement Ex.P9, has categorically admitted theft of Rs.97,000/- from Adhilakshmi Finance Company and further admitted that he would return Rs.90,000/- and when the said amount was also recovered, the Court below after conclusion of the trial, ought to have ordered custody of the remaining cash of Rs.90,000/- to the defacto complainant. “452. Order for disposal of property at conclusion of trial:- (1) 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. (2) An order may be made under sub-section (1) for the delivery of any property to any person claiming to be entitled to the possession thereof, without any condition or on condition that he executes a bond, with or without securities, to the satisfaction of the Court, engaging to restore such property to the Court if the order made under sub-section (1) is modified or set aside on appeal or revision. (3) A Court of Session may, instead of itself making an order under sub-section (1), direct the property to be delivered to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who shall thereupon deal with it in the manner provided in section 457, 458 and 459. (4) Except where the property is livestock or is subject to speedy and natural decay, or where a bond has been executed in pursuance of sub-sec. (2), an order made under sub-sec. (1) shall not be carried out for two months, or when an appeal is presented, until such appeal has been disposed of. (5) In this section, the term "property" includes, in the case of property regarding which an offence appears to have been committed, not only such property as has been originally in the possession or under the control of any party, but also any property into or for which the same may have, been converted or exchanged, and anything acquired by such conversion or exchange, whether immediately or otherwise.” 14. Yet another factor to be considered is that when the accused has not chosen to make a claim, for the return of the cash, the Court below ought to have ordered the custody of the cash from whom the property was stolen. 15. In Mahesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 541 (II), a learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court ordered for forfeiture of the amount to the State. Being aggrieved by the same, the owner filed SLP. At paragraph Nos. 2 and 3, the Apex Court held as follows: “2. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that the direction made by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court for the forfeiture of the amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to the Sate is wholly unwarranted. At paragraph Nos. 2 and 3, the Apex Court held as follows: “2. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that the direction made by the learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court for the forfeiture of the amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to the Sate is wholly unwarranted. It is now accepted principle that the confessional part of the statement made by the accused leading to discovery within the meaning of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 or Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be made use of for purpose of and the disposal of property under Section 452 of the Code. There is a long line of decisions laying down the principle and we would refer to only a few of them. 3. In Queen Empress V. Tribhovan Manekchand (ILR 9 Bom 13), a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court laid down that the statement made to the police by the accused persons as to the ownership of property which was the subject matter of the proceedings against them although inadmissible as evidence against them at the trial for the offence with which they were charged, were admissible as evidence with regard to the ownership of the property in an enquiry held by the Criminal Procedure Code. The same view as reiterated in Pohlu v. Emperor (AIR 1943 Lah 312), where it was pointed out that though there is a bar in Section 25 of the Evidence Act, or in Section 162 Cr.P.C., for being made use of as evidence against the accused, this statement could be made use of in an enquiry under Section 517 Cr.P.C., when determining the question of return of property. These two decisions have been followed by the Rajasthan High Court in Dhanraj Baldeokishan v. State ( AIR 1965 Raj 238 ) and the Mysore High Court in Veerabhadrappa V. Govinda (ILR (1973) 23 Mys 64). In the present case, the amount in question was seized from the accused in pursuance of statements made by them under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The High Court as well as the courts below have found the property to be the subject of theft and the acquittal of the accused is upon benefit of doubt. In the present case, the amount in question was seized from the accused in pursuance of statements made by them under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The High Court as well as the courts below have found the property to be the subject of theft and the acquittal of the accused is upon benefit of doubt. The accused persons disclaimed the stolen property and there is no reason why the same should not be returned to the owner i.e., the complainant to whom it belongs.” Ultimately, setting aside the impugned part of the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court, the Apex Court, allowed the appeal and directed the amount seized to be returned to the appellant therein. Decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner squarely applies to the facts of this case. 16. Thus, on the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the portion of the judgment made in C.C.384 of 2013, dated 09.09.2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalaipet, declaring that the remaining cash of Rs.90,000/- belongs to the Government and consequently, forfeiture of the amount, are liable to be set aside. Consequently, the said finding is reversed. Defacto complainant / petitioner would be entitled to the custody of the remaining crime property viz., Rs.90,000/- cash. 17. Therefore, a direction is issued to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Udumalpet, to order custody of the abovesaid sum to the petitioner/defacto complainant within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 18. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed.