1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Criminal Application No. 1626 of 2009 In Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 1997 State of Maharashtra v. Arun and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr M.N. Ingle, Advocate for applicant Mr K.S. Dhote, APP for State Coram : A.P. Bhangale, J Dated : 2nd February 2010 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this application, applicant/original complainant has prayed for direction to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shegaon to make detailed enquiry in respect of muddemal property removed from the custody of applicant. It is also prayed that in the event it is found that the muddemal property is not traceable, direction may be issued to recover cost thereof from accused no. 1 Arun (being legal heir of deceased accused no. 3 Abarao) to be made over to the applicant. 2. Report from the Judicial Magistrate, FC, Shegaon dated 19.3.2009 is received in which it is stated that after appeal period was over, muddemal property was returned to original accused no. 3 Abarao Babanrao Marode. Report further 2 reveals that since Abarao died, notice was issued to accused no. 1 Arun Marode (his son) who filed his reply claiming ignorance as to whether property was actually received by his father Abarao or not and if at all it was received, he did not know anything about it. 3. It is borne out from record that compromise pursis was filed by applicant (complainant) and accused no. 3 Tejrao which was accepted by this Court. According to the terms of compromise, inter-alia, muddemal property was to be returned to the applicant-complainant. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Arun Marode contends that since Arun did not receive the property, he cannot be ordered to return the property even if it is found that his father Abarao had received the same. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. In respect of final disposal of the property by a criminal court, it has to be released in favour of the claimant who is prima facie entitled to the same. Thus, the property seized during the course of investigation and reported to the criminal court is required to be finally disposed of by the criminal court at the conclusion of the trial. If according to records, seized property was returned to Abarao Marode, respondent no. 1 Arun Abarao Marode as legal representative of late Abarao, who was one of the accused in the case, is answerable for return of the property or value 3 thereof. It is general rule that property has to be returned to the person from whom it was seized. Enquiry contemplates a decision as to question of lawful possession of the property. Although criminal court is not expected to enter into elaborate enquiry like a full-fledged trial, it may look into evidence already adduced before it in the main case together with relevant circumstances on record and determine as to who is entitled to possession of the property to be disposed of at the conclusion of trial. There is no doubt that final decision by the criminal court regarding return of the property may be subject to a civil dispute between the parties as to who is entitled to the property according to law. Such questions are decided finally in a civil suit between the parties. However, at present, in view of the provisions of Section 452 Cr.P.C., learned Magistrate is required to exercise discretion to return the property involved in the case at the conclusion of the trial to any person who is best entitled to the possession thereof. 5. Therefore, application is allowed. The Judicial Magistrate, FC, Shegaon is directed to make detailed enquiry through police in respect of muddemal property in question removed from the custody of applicant Sushilabai. If upon enquiry, the property is traced out, the same shall be returned to applicant Sushilabai. If the property is not traced out, value thereof may be determined by the learned Magistrate and the same may be recovered from respondent Arun Abarao Marode 4 (original accused no.3) to be made over to applicant Sushilabai. Application stands disposed of accordingly. Judge. hsj