L.S. Mehta, J.
1. Accused Dhannalal, Ramlal, Surajmal and Devilal were challaned in the court of Additional Munsiff-Magistrate, Bundi, for trial under Section 379, I.P.C. It is alleged that the accused committed theft in respect of 'Babul wood belonging to the complainant Jagannath, After necessary proceedings the accused persons were discharged by the trial court by its judgment dated January 24, 1967. Both the parties, i.e., the complainant Jagannath and the accused persons were directed by the court to approach appropriate civil court and get their respective claims relating to the property in dispute settled. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the accused Dhannalal and others in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, praying that the 'Babul' wood should be ordered to be restored to them, as the same had been seized from their possession. The complainant did not file any appeal. Learned Judge observed in his judment that the wood would deteriorate till the disposal of civil litigation. He, therefore, ordered that it should be made over to any of the parties, which was prepared to give highest price, after obtaining requisite security.
2. Aggrieved against the above order, Dhannalal and others have filed the present revision-petition. Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and, therefore, it should be quashed and the property be restored to them.
3. Sections 517 and 523, Cr.P.C., are distinct and exclusive Section 517, Cr.P.C., would apply when an inquiry or trial in any criminal court is concluded. Section 523 Cr.P.C., on the other hands deals with property seized by the police under Section 51, Cr.P.C. or alleged or suspected to have been stolen or found in the circumstances which create suspicion of the commission of any offence. When the language of these two sections is read together, it becomes crystal clear that that the property seized on account of suspicion etc. is not governed by Section 517, Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order of the trial court that the property should be sold to either of the parties and the amount be deposited till a right there to is established by a civil court, was beyond its jurisdiction and was contrary to the provisions of Section 517, Cr.P.C. There is no provision in Section 517, Cr.P.C., which authorises the Magistrate to safeguard the interest of a litigant who might succeed in establishing his right in a civil court, Under this section, the Magistrate is not empowered to take or decide the right of possession of the party concerned. He also cannot direct the detention of the property in court, nor can he direct the party to execute a bond to safeguard the interest of a party ultimately successful in the Civil Court, He cannot impose any condition whatsoever, Where, as here, there are grounds for suspecting that the property was obtained by the accused persons under a pretext, it is impossible to act upon that suspicion and direct delivery of property to any one of the parties offering higher price. An order of this type is not warranted by law Vide Gopinath Naik v. The State : AIR1957Ori287 , and Tenali Sitiah v. State of Andhra and Ors. AIR 1957 AP 1024. In that view of the matter, there is no way out but to return the property in question to the accused person, from whose possession it had been seized.
4. In the result, the revision-petition is accepted, the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, dated September 29, 1967, is set aside and the property in question is directed to be returned to the petitioners from whose possession it had been recovered.