ORDER : G. Radha Rani, J. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner – owner of the property under Section 451 read with Section 457 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1031 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge – cum – VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar in Crime No.77 of 2023 of PS Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda District. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Vanasthalipuram on receiving credible information on 15.01.2023 at 02:00 PM conducted vehicle checking at Gayathri Nagar Bank Colony Road and at 02:50 PM stopped a two-wheeler ridden by respondent No.2 without any number plate and seized a bag containing cash of Rs.23,17,400/- from him and registered a case in Crime No.77 of 2023 of Vanasthalipuram Police Station under Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 12.12.2023 under Section 451 read with Section 457 of Cr.P.C. for return of cash. The same was dismissed by the trial court. 3. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred this Revision. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 102 of Cr.P.C. grants power to the Police to seize movable property that was alleged or suspected to have been stolen. In the present case, there was no material to say that the cash was stolen. The cash could not be seized merely because the respondent No.2 failed to explain the source of cash. The Police were empowered to seize the same only if the cash was the proceeds of a crime or if the same was stolen. Till date, the FIR had not been altered and there was no report from any one about any stolen cash. The FIR itself could not be registered under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. as the said Section governs only procedural law and was not a penal offence. As such, the learned Judge ought to have released the cash in favor of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 also filed a memo before the court below stating that he had no objection to return the net cash to the petitioner. As such, the learned Judge ought to have released the cash in favor of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 also filed a memo before the court below stating that he had no objection to return the net cash to the petitioner. The petitioner also stated before the Court that his mother had sold a house and entrusted the cash to respondent No.2 to deposit in the bank and also enclosed the copy of the sale deed. The reasons given by the trial court were unsustainable and prayed to set aside the order of the trial court in dismissing the petition filed by him and to release the cash in favor of the petitioner. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor reported that no complaint was received and the Section of Law was not altered till date in Crime No.77 of 2023 of PS Vanasthalipuram. He further contended that the sale deed filed by the petitioner would show that the house property was sold for a total sale consideration of Rs.13,63,000/- in the year 2021 but the amount seized by the Police surpasses the sale consideration amount. As such, the trial court rightly dismissed the application and supported the orders of the trial court. 7. Perused the record. 8. Section 102 of Cr.P.C. enables the Police Officers to seize any property which is alleged or suspected to have been stolen. As the case was registered under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., it is considered necessary to extract the above provision for proper appreciation. Section 102 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: 102. Power of Police Officer to seize certain property. – (1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the Commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. – (1) Any police officer may seize any property which may be alleged or suspected to have been stolen, or which may be found under circumstances which create suspicion of the Commission of any offence. (2) Such police officer, if subordinate to the officer in charge of a police station, shall forthwith report the seizure to that officer. (3) Every police officer acting under Sub-Section (1) shall forthwith report the seizure to the Magistrate having jurisdiction and where the property seized is such that it cannot be, conveniently transported to the Court or where there is difficulty in securing proper accommodation for the custody of such property, or where the continued retention of the property in police custody may not be considered necessary for the purpose of investigation, he may give custody thereof to any person on his executing a bond undertaking to produce the property before the Court as and when required and to give effect to the further orders of the Court as to the disposal of the same. [Provided that where the property seized under Sub-Section (1) is subject to speedy and natural decay and if the person entitled to the possession of such property is unknown or absent and the value of such property is less than five hundred rupees, it may forthwith be sold by auction under the orders of the Superintendent of Police and the provisions of sections 457 and 458 shall, as nearly as may be practicable, apply to the net proceeds of such sale.] 9. From a reading of this Section, it is obvious that a police officer in the course of investigation can seize any property under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C, if such property is alleged to be stolen or suspected to be stolen or is the subject of the crime under investigation or has direct link with the commission of offence which is being investigated. A property which is not the subject matter of suspected commission of offence which is being investigated cannot be seized. Under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a police officer can seize such property which is covered by Section 102 (1) of the Cr.P.C and no other. 10. A property which is not the subject matter of suspected commission of offence which is being investigated cannot be seized. Under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a police officer can seize such property which is covered by Section 102 (1) of the Cr.P.C and no other. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of His Holiness Sri Kanchi Kamakoti v. The State of Tamilnadu, 2005 (3) CRLJ 375 dealt with the scope and power of Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that: “Only two categories of properties could be seized namely property which is alleged or suspected to have been stolen or which may be found under such circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. No other category could be included or deemed to be included as may otherwise be possible in an expansive definition by using certain other expressions in addition such as "as the case may be", "as the authorities deem fit and necessary" etc., which may render the provision an inclusive and illustrative one and not an exhaustive one. The language of Section 102 of the Cr.P.C is very clear and it is clearly an exhaustive provision, as it should be. Otherwise, the provision would be arbitrary and unconnected to the offence and would be liable to be misused for ulterior purposes. It is precisely for this reason that by special design, the parliament has restricted the power under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to specific and narrow limits.” 11. Thus the power under Section 102 of Cr.P.C. is limited to the case under investigation or if on a suspicion it was seized, investigation has to be conducted and if it is found to be stolen, a case has to be registered or else to be returned to the person from whom it was seized. The Police shall also produce the property before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who shall pass orders on it. It was the duty of the Court to ensure that the property seized by the Police cannot be retained in the custody of the Police or the Court for a longer period. The Police shall also produce the property before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who shall pass orders on it. It was the duty of the Court to ensure that the property seized by the Police cannot be retained in the custody of the Police or the Court for a longer period. The property seized by the Police can be released to the person who is lawfully entitled to claim it or from whom it was seized, when no complaint was registered by the Police subsequently also, altering the section of law from Section 102 of Cr.P.C. to any penal offence. Section 102 of Cr.P.C. is only a procedural law and not a penal offence. 12. The petitioner was claiming that the cash seized belonged to him. He also stated that his mother had sold the house and entrusted the cash to respondent No.2 to deposit in the bank and filed a copy of the sale deed. The respondent No.2 also reported no objection to return the cash to the petitioner. No other persons claimed the said cash as belonged to them. The trial court observing that the seized cash surpassed the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed and as no document was filed demonstrating that the petitioner received a share in the sale consideration dismissed the petition. 13. However, as no cognizable offence was made out by the Police with regard to the alleged seizure of the property which was seized under Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure and as the petitioner was claiming the cash as that of him and no other persons came forward claiming the said cash as belonging to them and the respondent No.2 from whom the said cash was seized also reported no objection for return of the same to the petitioner, as the same belonged to the petitioner, the trial court ought to have returned the same to the petitioner. If the petitioner failed to show the source of funds, it was for the concerned Departments to take action as per law and the petitioner would be facing the consequences, if he was unable to show the source of funds. 14. If the petitioner failed to show the source of funds, it was for the concerned Departments to take action as per law and the petitioner would be facing the consequences, if he was unable to show the source of funds. 14. Hence, it is considered fit to allow the Criminal Revision Case setting aside the order of the trial court in Crl.M.P.No.1031 of 2023 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge – cum – VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar in Crime No.77 of 2023 of PS Vanasthalipuram, Rachakonda District and the concerned Court is directed to return the property i.e. cash of Rs.23,17,400/- to the petitioner on his submitting a personal bond and an affidavit stating that if any person comes forward claiming the said property and could show a better title than him, it would be returned by him and on submitting security of immovable property for the said amount. 15. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed with the above directions. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this Revision if any shall stand closed.