1. There was house breaking and theft in the house of the respondent on 3.8.1969, One Komaru Thevgr was arrested by the Inspector of Police on the 19th of September, 1969. He took the Inspector to the shop of this (petitioner and from there the chain M.O. 2 was recovered. He was tried for the offence under Section 380. Indian Penal Code along with another person. The Sub-Magistrate disbelieved the case of recovery put forward by the prosecution and acquitted both the persons. He did not Pass any orders as regards the disposal of the properties seized in the case. Subsequently, he started proceedings for the disposal of the properties and he issued notice to the respondent, petitioner and others. The Magistrate who succeeded him ordered the return of M.O. 2 to the respondent and on appeal this was confirmed. The petitioner contends that this order is erroneous.
2. M.O. 2 chain was recovered from the possession of this petitioner. The learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused in the case and disbelieved the alleged confession said to have been made by Komaru Thevar. He has also acquitted the other person who was arrayed with him. In normal circumstances, on acquittal or discharge the property should be returned to the person from whom it was seized, vide Muthiah Muthiraian v. Vairaperumal Muthiraian . The learned Magistrate should have returned the property to the petitioner. The order directing the re-turn to the respondent is set aside. The property shall be returned to the petitioner on his entering into a bond for Rs. 750/- to the satisfaction of the S.M. Mudukulathu. With this direction the petition is allowed. Time 1 month.