Kidwai, J. - (1.) One Abdur Rahim who was working as Station Master was prosecuted under Section 161 of the Penal Code for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 600/- from Mahabir and Thagram. The case was tried by a Special Magistrate of the first class of Lucknow and ended in the acquittal of Abdur Rahim. Abdur Rahim then applied for restoration of Rs. 600/- which had been taken from him by the police. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 11-4-1953, rejected the application of Abdur Rahim for return of the money.
(2.) The matter was taken up in appeal and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Abdur Rahim then came in revision to this Court and his revision application was allowed by my learned brother Hari Shankar, J. by his order dated 8-12-1954. My learned brother, however, failed to hear the complainant opposite party, viz., Salik Ram and consequently an application was made under Section 561A, Criminal P. C. for set- ting aside the order passed and for a re-hearing of the revision application. This application was allowed by my learned brother who set aside his previous order and directed that the revision application be restored and be heard by some other Judge. It is in pursuance of this order that the matter came before me and it has been argued before me independently of the judgment of my learned brother.
(3.) The only point which now arises is whether Section 517, Criminal P. C. justifies the return of the money to Abdur Rahim or whether it should be given to Salik Ram. Section 517 (1) reads as follows : "When an inquiry or a 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 other wise 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". It will be seen from the above quotation that what the Court has to determine is as to which person is entitled to possession of the property. It is not for the criminal court to determine title to the property. In the present case, it is not disputed that the currency notes were recovered from the possession of Abdur Rahim. It is further not denied that the charge against Abdur Rahim under Section 161, I. P. C. was held not proved, The learned Magistrate, who was the same Magistrate who acquitted Abdur Rahim, states in his judgment that in his order of acquittal he had held: "It is also true that in my judgment I have remarked that on this point the accused has examined himself and D. Ws. 3, 4 and 6. Since the prosecution evidence is vague and discrepant, there is no reason why the defence version should be rejected. At any rate, the alleged admission does not stand proved". Thus apart from the acquittal of Abdur Rahim the learned Magistrate trying the criminal case further held that the defence was not disproved.;