K.C.Agrawal, J. - (1.) THIS revision has been filed by Udho Ram, the applicant, challenging his conviction under Section 420 I.P.C. According to the prosecution case, the applicant's daughter-in-law was related to the wife of Kalyan Rai. Kalyan Rai was the resident of village Kaunandan whereas the applicant was the resident of village Paradauli which lies at a distance of seven or eight miles from Kaunandan. Kalyan Rai was issueless. According to the case of the prosecution, on 27th of July, 1972 when Kalyan Rai was not present in his house, Udho Ram, the applicant, went there and represented to Uma Devi wife of Kalyan Rai that he had brought a Mahatma with him who was capable of blessing her with riches and children and as his daughter-in-law had received the benefit of Mahatma's blessing, she could also avail of his services. On the aforesaid representation being made by the applicant, Uma Devi arranged for Puja and invited Babu Ram, Nanak Chand and Nanhey Mai for the purposes of participating in it. As the Puja commenced, Udho Ram asked Uma Devi to bring her clothes and gold ornaments. On these articles being brought, he kept the ornaments locked and got them placed in the Puja. The key of the lock, however, was kept by the applicant with himself. After sometime he asked every one present in the puja to close his eyes and concentrate on the Mahatma. This was complied with. After sometime when people were asked to open their eyes, Uma Devi was told by Udho Ram that the box was not to be opened for about 24 hours. Uma Devi was also warned by Udho Ram that in case the box was opened within 24 hours, the husband of Uma Devi was likely to lose his eyes and would become blind. On that day Udho Ram and the Sadhu stayed at the house of Uma Devi and took their meals there. In the early morning, however, when Uma Devi woke up she found the applicant and the Sadhu missing from the house. This created suspicion in her mind and consequently she opened the box but found that the jewellery kept therein was missing. It was thereupon that Kalyan Rai who had gone to Bareilly was informed about the incident who thereafter came back to his village and lodged a first information report in the police station on 29th July, 1972. After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted by the police under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE applicant pleaded not guilty and alleged that the delay in lodging the FIR was indicative of the concoction of case against him. To establish its case, the prosecution examined Kalyan Rai, Ballu Singh, Nanak Chand and Uma Devi. The applicant, however, produced no defence in support of his claim of being not guilty. The Magistrate, having found that the prosecution had been able to bring home the guilt against the applicant beyond all reasonable doubt convicted him of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo two years' R.I. Against the judgment of the Magistrate, the applicant preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. In the appeal, the findings given by the Magistrate were confirmed and it was found by the learned Sessions Judge that the evidence of Uma Devi supported by that of Ballu Sicgh fully established that the applicant was guilty of cheating and depriving Kalyan Rai of his valuable property. In this view of the matter, the appeal was dismissed and conviction and sentence of the applicant were confirmed. Aggrieved by the judgments of the two courts below, the present revision has been filed by Udho Ram in this court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the applicant could not urge that the findings of fact about the applicant having gone to the house of Kalyan Rai on 27th July, 1972 were incorrect or that the complainant was not deprived of the jewellery and ornaments on the aforesaid date by the applicant. In my opinion, it was rightly so done as the findings of the two courts are findings based on the appraisal of evidence and thus being findings of fact could not be assailed in the present revision. It is settled position in law that the High Court while deciding a criminal revision has a restricted power of considering whether the judgments rendered by the courts below are erroneous in law or not. It in fact, exercises the power of a supervisory nature and cannot embark upon reappraisal of evidence. It was, however, urged by Sri Keshav Sahai, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, that offence of which the applicant might be found guilty was at the most that of Section 403 I.P.C. and, therefore, his conviction under Section 420 I.P.C. was bad in law. In older to appreciate the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant, it may be worthwhile to reproduce Sections 403, 415 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 403 is as under : 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property.-Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Illustrations Explanation 1.-A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation within the meaning of this section. Illustration Explanation 2.-A person who finds property not in possession of any other person and takes such property for the purpose or protecting it for, or for restoring it to the owner does not take or misappropriate it dishonestly and is not guilty of an offence, but he is guilty of the offence above defined if he appropriates it to his own use when he knows or has the means of discovering the owner or before he has used reasonable means, to discover and give notice to the owner and has kept the property for a reasonable time to enable the owner to claim it. What are reasonable means or what is reasonable time in such a case is a question of fact. Section 420 is as under : 420. Cheating and dishonest delivery of property.-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonesty induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destory the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which a signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. ;