1 APEAL 67 OF 1995 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.67 OF 1995 Parmar Shankar Mishra residing at: 30/32, Old Satta Gali, Zaveri Bazar, Bombay ,.. Appellant. -versus 1. Shankar Satish Kadakia, residing at room nO.7, 1st floor, Mangal Bhavan, Mangalwadi, Girgaum Bombay 400004. 2. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr. Ashish Sawant i/b Mr. M.S. Mohite, Appellant. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 11th November, 2011 P.C. 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for disposal of the property seized in a case of robbery. The learned Judge ordered the property to be returned to the victim of the crime. The property includes article Nos 5 and 6, which were recovered from the appellant pursuant to discloser made by accused Muljilal Chaganlal Sony, stating that he had sold the ornaments to a person and that he would take the police party and panchas to that person. He then took the 2 APEAL 67 OF 1995 police party to the present appellant Parmar Shankar Mishra, from whom ornaments were seized. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant had purchased this property on the day it was recovered from him by paying Rs. 17,789/- and that he has receipt about purchase of these articles from Sakariya Jewellery Mart. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant, articles 5 and 6 should have been ordered to be returned to the appellant. 2. I have carefully considered these submissions. First the order passed by the Criminal Court regarding disposal of the property does not create any title in the property, but is only as regards the possession or right to possess the property. The property was recovered from the appellant pursuant to memorandum of statement made by accused in the case. Therefore, articles takes character of a stolen property. In any case the learned Judge while disposing of the application for disposal of the property, had stated that it would be fit and proper if the appellant is given an opportunity to approach Civil Court to establish his title to the property and to obtain orders. The order recounts that Ms. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant had fairly agreed that if sufficient time was given to her client to adopt appropriate remedy under Civil Law, it would serve interest of her client. In these premises the learned Judge passed the 3 APEAL 67 OF 1995 impugned order. After having stated before the trial Court, by learned counsel for appellant that his client’s interest would be served if he would be permitted to seek remedy from competent Civil Court, it is not clear as to what prompted the appellant to approach this Court, by filing this appeal. There is no error in the order. The appellant should have exhausted the remedy before the Civil Court for which he had been granted leave by the Sessions Court. In view of this appeal is dismissed. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)