RAMCHANDRA AND ANR. Vs. HASTIMAL JAIN
LAWS(MPH)-1955-9-14
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on September 08,1955

Ramchandra And Anr. Appellant
VERSUS
Hastimal Jain Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Chaturvedi, J. - (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of three criminal Revisions No. 53 of 1954 filed by Ramchandra against Hastimal, No. 57 of 1954 filed by the Petitioner Ramchandra against Chhotelal and No. 59 of 1954 filed by Motilal against Hastimal and Chhotelal.
(2.) IT is necessary to state some facts in order to understand, the points involved in these revisions. It appears that the applicant Hastimal gave information on 23 -10 -1946 to Sarafa Police that one Mohanlal had taken ornaments from him for showing them to Maharaja Tukojirao, but it appeared that those ornaments were then pledged with Ramchandra and Motilal and were not returned to Hastimal. A similar report was lodged by non -applicant, Chhotelal on 27 -10 -1946. So, two cases under Section 420, I.P.C. were registered on 22 -1 -1947 against Mohanlal in the Court of the Third Magistrate, Indore City. On the same day both Hastimal and Chhotelal applied to the Court for grant of permission to compound the case on the grounds that the accused Mohanlal had agreed to return the property. It was mentioned in Hastimal's application that a composition would save the intimate relations (Sic) which prevailed between him and the accused. The Magistrate granted permission to compound the offence. The composition had the effect of an acquittal in respect of the offence under Section 420, I.P.C. Both of them then applied to the Magistrate for return of the property to them. The Magistrate without taking security, passed an order for delivery. The delivery of the ornaments was made to Hastimal and Chhotelal separately. A month and a half after the delivery of the property, the two non -applicants, the Petitioners Ramchandra and Motilal made an application, stating therein that the property had been pledged with them, and it was from their possession that the ornaments were seized by the Police and without hearing them in the matter the property had been delivered to the non -applicants. They prayed that the ornaments should be handed over to them. This application was rejected by the learned Magistrate and by the Sessions Judge. So both of them came to the High Court in revision. Justice Sanghi who heard these revisions held that the order passed by the Magistrate was wrong, and passed the following order: I annul the orders passed by the Third Magistrate, Indore City, in Criminal Cases Nos. 1173 and 1174 of 1947 whereby jewellery held by the Court was delivered to Hastimal and Chhotelal and under Section 483, Code of Criminal Procedure I make the further Order that the two persons should restore the property delivered to the Third Magistrate Indore City. On restitution, the properties shall be delivered to the applicants Ramchandra and Motilal such articles as were taken by the Police from them.
(3.) IN accordance with the Order of the High 'Court, the learned Magistrate issued orders, both co Hastimal and Chhotelal asking them to deliver the property to the Court Both of them replied that the property was not with them and they were unable to produce it. Hastimal also added that since no condition was imposed when the property was delivered to him he did not keep the property with him. He did not mention as to what had been done to the property. On 28 -1 -1950 Mr. Ramsingh the then Magistrate passed an order that Chhotelal should deposits the price of the property in Court and the Petitioners Ramchandra and Motilal should furnish, accounts as to the value of ornaments pledged with them, as there was no mention in the file of the" property given to Hastimal. It was mentioned in the order that after hearing objections he would decide as to what the price of ornaments would be. It appears that the Magistrate was then transferred and Mr. M.P. Bhatnagar took over charge on. 9 -3 -1950. The non -applicant Hastimal made applications to the effect that the price of the ornaments can be settled only by the Civil Court and Mr. Bhatnagar upheld this objection and directed the two Petitioners i.e., the pledgees of ornaments to seek relief in a civil Court. This judgment was upheld by the Sessions Court and therefore the Petitioners have come in revision to this Court.;


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