- (1.) THESE are two applications in revision against the order of the Sessions Judge of Lucknow dated 10th January 1953, refusing to interfere with an order dated 25th October 1952, passed by a Magistrate, first class, on an application made by Smt. Bitia.
(2.) AS the facts of this case are a trifle complicated it would be useful to make a brief reference to them before entering into a discussion of the points raised on behalf of the applicants.
(3.) A complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was made by one Smt. Taravati on the allegations that certain ornaments and a box had been entrusted by her in the company of her adoptive mother Smt. Jamna Devi sometime in 1948, to Salig Ram and Smt. Bitia for safe custody and that they failed to return the property to her and therefore committed criminal breach of trust. The defence of Salig Ram and Smt. Bitia was that the entrustment of the articles had been made by Smt. Jamna Devi and not by Smt. Taravati. It was also contended on behalf of salig Ram that Jamna Devi in fact pawned the ornaments and that they were not deposited in trust. The learned Magistrate who tried the case came to the conclusion that the ornaments had been entrusted to the care of Salig Ram by Smt. Jamna Devi, but the box, which was a separate item, had been entrusted by Smt. Taravati. Salig Bam was acquitted and Smt. Bitia was discharged. This order of acquittal was followed by an order made under Section 517, Criminal P. C. directing the return of the ornaments which had been taken possession of by the police to Salig ram and the box to Smt. Taravati. Taravati then went in revision against the order of acquittal while Salig Ram and Smt. Bitia went in appeal against the order passed by the Magistrate under section 517, Criminal P. C. Both these cases were transferred to Sri Gopal Chand Sinha, temporary Civil and Sessions Judge. He dismissed the appeal but made a reference to the High court for the setting aside of the acquittal. The reference made by the Sessions Judge came up for hearing before a learned Judge of this Court on 16th May 1952, and it was rejected. Certain observations had been made in the judgment of the High Court and 011 the basis of these observations an application was made by Smt. Bitia to the Magistrate, who had passed the order under Section 517, Criminal P. C. for a revision of the order on the ground that the High Court had held that the box had also been entrusted by Jamna Devi and not by Taravati. The learned magistrate to whom the application was made dismissed it on 25th October 1952, and a copy of the order has been filed. In this order the learned Magistrate referred to his earlier order for the disposal of the articles which were the subject-matter of the dispute under Section 406, Penal code, and he refused to amend his order unless an order of the High Court was brought. The applicants Smt. Bitia and Salig Ram then went in revision to the Sessions Judge of Lucknow. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for revision and she has now come up in revision to this Court.;