J JAWAHARLAL Vs. K S BASAVARAJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court was P.W. 2 in C.C. No. 2341 of 1970 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, First Court, Bangalore.. The respondent before this Court was the complainant in the said case and was examined as P.W. 1. The Police filed a chargesheet against A-1 and A2 charging them with having committed offences under Ss.406 and 414, Indian Penal Code. After the trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted the Accused and directed that M.O. 1 to M.O. 3, iewels which were the subject matter of the complaint, be returned to the petitioner P.W. 2, with whom these iewels had been pledged bv A2. This order passed bv the learned Magistrate was challenged in Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2 of 1971 and the First Additional Sessions Judge of Bangalore, set aside the said order and directed the return of M.O. 1 to M.O. 3 to the owner, P.W. 1, the complainant in the said case. This order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is challenged in this revision petition.

(2.) Sri G. R. Doreswamy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, P.W. 2, has argued that the Magistrate had found that there was no entrustment, and misappropriation bv the accused and acquitted them. The petitioner in this case is a third partv and he bona fide accepted the pledge of the jewels, M.O. 1 to M.O. 3. The learned Sessions Judge committed a mistake in thinking that P.W. 1 did not come with A-2 at the time of the pledge. After being a partv to the pledge, P.W. 1 wants to get back the jewellery without paving the amount. It is open to P.W. 1 to pay the money and redeem the pledge from P.W. 2. It is contended that the petitioner being a pledgee, the court erred in returning M.O. 1 to M.O. 3 to P.W. 1, the complainant when the accused was acquitted in the criminal case. The learned counsel has relied on A.I.R. 1942, Nagpur 82, AIR. 1953 SC. 508, and AIR. 1960 Andhra Pradesh 123 in support of the said contentions.

(3.) Sri C. Lakshminarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of P.W. 1, complainant, has argued that it is admitted that P.W. 1, was the owner of the jewels M.O. 1 to M.O. 3, His initials, 'K.S.B.' are found on the jewels. The version given by P.W. 2 that P.W. 1 was present at the time of the pledge is false. In examination in chief, P.W. 2 has stated that the accused 2 came and pledged the jewels but in the cross examination he has stated that P.W. 1 had come with A-2 for pledging the jewels. This statement made by P.W. 2 is an after-thought and made only to help himself and save the property. If P.W. 1 had really come with A-2 at the time of pledge, it was open to him (P.W. 2) to take the signature of P.W. 1 on" Ex. P-2, pawn ticket taken by P.W. 2 at the time of the pledge. Even in Ex. P-3 Mahazar prepared, there is no reference about P.W. 1 being in the company of A-2 at the time of the pledge. The learned counsel has strongly relied on A.I.R. 1956 Madras 264 and 1969 (2) Mysore Law Journal 304 in support of his contentions. It is contended that P.W. 1 was not in the company of A-2 at the time of the pledge and the conduct of P.W. 2 clearly shows that knowing that A-2 was not the owner of the jewels, he has accepted the pledge. The learned counsel argued that there are no grounds to interfere with the order, and the learned Sessions Judge was fully justified in returning the jewels to P.W. 1 the owner.