PUSHKAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT
LAWS(SC)-1951-9-5
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADHYA PRADESH)
Decided on September 18,1951

PUSHKAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

GOVIND SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1985-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KANTHA MAL VS. H P ADMIN [LAWS(HPH)-1963-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
E RAMULA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1990-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
MARTHALA CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2004-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
J JAWAHARLAL VS. K S BASAVARAJAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-1972-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
KASHIRAM VS. BHAGWANDAS LALLU KURMI [LAWS(MPH)-1958-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
PADMA CHANDRIAH VS. PAMJWOMI [LAWS(APH)-1958-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
LALA HAR BHAGWANDAS VS. DIWAN CHAND [LAWS(MPH)-1960-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
BISWANATH SATPATHY VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1966-4-3] [REFERRED TO]
GOUR CHANDRA GOUDA VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1967-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
PAUL VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1959-8-23] [REFERRED TO]
KAMARLAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1992-2-17] [REFERRED TO]
MEVALDAS TAKHATMAL LEKHAWANI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1981-3-39] [REFERRED TO]
SHER SINGH VS. CHET RAM [LAWS(DLH)-1968-6-13] [REFERRED TO]
N MADHAVAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-1979-8-1] [RELIED ON]
NATTHUSINGH SON OF SITARAMJI BUNDEL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2010-8-3] [REFERRED]
MANHARAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
PARESH BHAI S/O LALLU BHAI VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2017-1-255] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED VS. SURYANARAYANAN [LAWS(SC)-2018-12-88] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M.P. VS. PINKI KUSHWAH [LAWS(MPH)-2019-8-131] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAPPA B. AND OTHERS VS. GURAPPA K.P. AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-1976-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
Jayashri Singh VS. State of Orissa [LAWS(ORI)-2012-11-19] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and order dated 4-12-1950 of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1950.
(2.)The appellant Pushkar Singh stood his trial for offences under Ss. 449 and 372, Gwalior Penal Code, before the Additional City Magistrate of Lashkar. The Magistrate held that no case was established against him and that the sum of money recovered from Pushkar Singh's house belonged to him.
The prosecution evidence to the effect that Pushkar Singh brought the money from inside and gave it to the police was disbelieved and it was found that it could not be held that this money belonged to the complainant or appertained to the theft committed in his house. As a result of these findings Pushkar Singh was acquitted. As regards the articles and the money taken from Pueshkar Singh's house, it was ordered that they be returned to him after expiry of the period for appeal. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed an application for revision made to him by and on behalf of the complainant. Against the decision of the Magistrate ordering that the sum of Rs. 463 recovered from Pushkar Singh's house be returned to him. Mst. Kaushillya Bai, widow of the complainant, filed an application in revision in the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Bharat, Gwalior. The High Court allowed the application and ordered that amount of Rs. 463 be awarded to the complainant and not to Pushkar Singh.

(3.)It seems to us that this order cannot be sustained in view of the clear findings of fact given by the Magistrate to the effect that no offence was committed in respect of the sum of Rs. 463 and that it did not belong to the complainant. It was on the basis of these findings that Pushkar Singh was acquitted and the amount recovered from his house was ordered to be delivered to him. Unless it was found that an offence was committed in respect of this sum, there was no jurisdiction to the High Court to order the payment of this amount to Mst. Kaushillya Bai. We have not been able to appreciate the view of the High Court that though the stolen property consisted of currency notes those notes may have been changed by the accused.
There is no evidence to support this finding, and unless by due procedure of law the acquittal of the accused is changed into a conviction, the order for payment of the sum of Rs. 463 infavour of Mst. Kaushillya Bai cannot be sustained under the clear provisions of S. 517, Criminal P. C.

;


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