MUTHIAH MUTHIRIAN Vs. VAIRAPERUMAL MUTHIRIAN
LAWS(MAD)-1953-7-7
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on July 17,1953

MUTHIAH MUTHIRIAN Appellant
VERSUS
VAIRAPERUMAL MUTHIRIAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Ramaswami, J. - (1.) This is a case in which the maternal uncle alleged as a complainant that bis nephew had stolen from him two ear-rings and cash of Rs, 4810-0-9. The prosecution mainly relied upon a confessional statement recorded Under Section 27, Evidence Act which is stated to have been made by the nephew. The appellate Court found that this confessional statement could not be accepted as it exceeded the limits of admissibility laid down in the Privy Council decision of ' Kotayya v. Emperor', AIR 1947 PC 67 (A) and the Madras cases of - 'Vodde Nagappa In re', AIR 1948 Mad 104(2) (B); - 'Public Prosecutor v. Voor Gounden', AIR 1948 Mad 242 (C); - 'In re Vellingiri', (D) - 'In re Sheikh Khadir Sahib', (E) and that there were several circumstances in this case like the uncle not coming forward with the complaint at the earliest possible time and the improbability of a nephew stealing the property of his uncle etc. creating considerable doubt and reversed the trial Magistrate's conviction giving the accused the benefit of doubt. A revision petition was filed in the High Court. Here my learned brother Somasunda-ram J. refused to interfere with the acquittal and confined the revision only to the disposal of stolen property which was the subject-matter of the case. In regard to this the uncle wants the return of the property and the nephew contests it. Therefore, what has to be done now in the matter of disposal of property is the point for consideration.
(2.) In normal circumstances, on acquittal or discharge the property would be returned to the person from whom it was seized: - 'Karup-pannan Ambalam v. Guruswami Pillai', AIR 1933 Mad 434 (2) (F); - 'In re Subba Raidu', Am 1922 Mad 329 (G); - 'Vadalapatta Sub-bayya v. Ponnangy Narasayya', /2 Weir 673 (H); - 'In re Syed Mohideen Sahib', 2 Weir 667 (668) (I). But when there are circumstances showing that the culprit has not claimed the property as his specifically and when there are also no grounds to hold that the property could belong to him, and the ques-tion of ownership has not been gone into in the judgment and decided one way or the other and the discharge or acquittal is based upon inadequacy or doubtfulness of the proof offered, it would be unreasonable to return the stolen property to the accused person.
(3.) But a Criminal Court, as well pointed out in the exhaustive analysis in Chitaley and Annaji Rao's Criminal Procedure Code, Vol. III, 4th (1950) Edn. at page 2862, is not expected, under the provisions of Section 517 to "try" civil cases. It is not the function of a criminal Court to decide nice questions involving principles of civil law, if there is a dispute between rival parties claiming a return of the property. It should not help a party whose object is to endeavour to obtain its judgment upon a question which ought to be determined in a civil Court. Where, therefore, there is a "doubt as to ownership" of property, or where a "question of bona fide title" by purchase or otherwise arises, the duty of the criminal Court is to leave the parties to their remedy in a civil suit. In the meanwhile, the criminal Court may adopt any one of the following modes of disposal: (1) It may return the property to the person from whom it was seized and leave the dissatisfied party to his remedy in a civil Court. (2) It may keep the property in its custody pending the decision of a competent civil Court. This course may not generally be desirable and as pointed out in - 'Mahomed Yusuf v. Krishna Mohan', AIR 1938 Cal 17(20) (J), the desirable course is that the Court should in such cases deal with the matter under Section 523 but in no circumstances, ordinarily whether the case be under this section or under Section 523, should an order be made for detention in court custody or in the custody of one of the parties, conditional on a civil suit being instituted, for this might mean detention for an indefinite period, if no such suit was brought. (3) In cases where property is claimed by a person other than the person from whom it was faken, the Court may impose conditions on the person to whom it is delivered in order that the property or the value thereof may be forthcoming in case the rival claimant establishes a title to it: 2 Weir 667 (668) (I); - 'Kedarnath Dey v. Mahomed Siddik', AIR 1924 Cal 455 (K). (4) It may, where the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, order it to be sold and the proceeds retained in custody of the Court until a right to it ,is established by civil Court: - 'Chenga Reddi v. Ramasami Goun-den', AIR 1915 Mad 588 (2) (L).;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.