(1.) This revision has been directed against the judgment and order dated 7.1.94 passed by the then V III Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi in Criminal Revision No. 175 of 1993 Chatarain Vs. State of U.P. and another , setting aside the order dated 31.5.93 passed by the then Vth Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi in case crime No. 93 of 1993 under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, Indian Penal Code, P.S. Chulapur, District Varanasi.
(2.) The dispute between the parties related to a tractor. This tractor was seized during investigation. Its number is UPZ 4193. The Magistrate ordered for giving the tractor in the supurdagi of Mangroo Ram the present revisionist upon furnishing a personal bond and one surety each of Rs. 50,000.00. Upon revision this order was set aside. The Addl. Sessions Judge directed that each of the parties would remain in the supurdagi of the tractor for two months by rotation. He also laid down certain other conditions including execution of personal bond and one surety in the sum of Rs. 50,000.00 each. Both the parties moved applications for release of the tractor in their favour. The contention of the opposite party No. 2 Chetaram was that the tractor was seized from his possession and therefore it be released in his favour during the pendency of the complaint. The contention of Mangroo Ram was That he owner of the tractor in question that Chetaram fictitiously sold this tractor to Shyam Bahadur Singh who has not come to claim possession or custody of the tractor and, therefore, it should be released in his favour. The trial court found that both the parties were entered as owners in the Registration Certificate. Chetaram by executing the sale deed in favour of Sham Bahadur Singh had ceased to he co-owner and as Shyam Bahadur Singh has not come forward to get the custody of the tractor it is just and proper that the tractor he released in favour of Mangroo Ram. The revisional court after consideration of the points involved in the case came to the conclusion that it is admitted case that the revisionist and the opposite party No. 2 purchased the tractor in joint ownership and the Registration certificate of the tractor was also prepared in their names as joint owners of the tractor. The transfer in favour of Shyam Bahadur Singh has been challenged by both the parties. Shyam Bahadur Singh has not come to claim the custody or supurdagi of the tractor and therefore the supurdagi of the tractor cannot be given to any one party. In these circumstances he passed the order in question. In Raja Ram Gupta Vs. State and another, 1982 (19) ACC 74. It was held that a criminal court is not a competent court to decide any matter of title. Its primary concern is to decide whether any of once is made out or not once it comes to a conclusion that the offence is not made out and the accused person is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal the only course open to it would he to restore the possession to the party from whose custody the property was seized. If the revisionist claims ownership of the property his proper forum is to seek remedy from a competent court on the civil side. So far as the criminal court is concerned it has simply to restore the property to the person from whose custody it was seized without deciding as to who is the owner thereof.
(3.) The above Ruling related to Section 452 Criminal Procedure Code when the case was finally concluded and the accused were acquitted. In the instant case this stage has not reached. The order passed by the Magistrate would he deemed to have been passed under Sec. 451 Criminal Procedure Code which deals with order for custody and disposal of property pending trial.