All right. Let us see the
degree of proof it does require. It says: Where an accused is tried for an indictable offence but is not convicted, and the court finds that an indictable offence has been committed-
They may have got the wrong man, but the property has been stolen. They are not sure of the man, but they are sure of the property.
-the court may order that any property obtained by the commission of the offence-
-without identifying any accused with that offence-
-shall be restored to the person-
To what person?
-to the person entitled to it-
To whom should it be restored except the person who is entitled to it? How will the court decide whether a man is entitled to it except on the evidence that the owner has brought before them? How could the court decide under the old section as to the proper possession of property except by evidence? And if the owner can show he is entitled to it, then why should he not have an order from the court saying he can take it away without any more formalities or expense?