ISSAC SAMUEL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Sub Magistrate of Nedumangad under S.517 Crl. P. C., directing that the cost of arecanuts remaining in Court custody be given to Pw. 1 the complainant in the case. The matter was taken up before the Sessions Judge of Trivandrum who has confirmed the order.

(2.) The accused is the Superintendent of the River View Estate of which Dw. 1 is the managing director. Pw. 1 claims to have obtained a lease of the areca trees in the estate. His case is that his agent Pw. 2 had collected the nuts on 6-2-1961 and entrusted the same to the accused for safe custody and when asked for it the next day he failed to return the same. Information was given to the police and a case was registered. The arecanuts were taken into custody from the estate car shed and produced in Court. It was sold and the sale proceeds is in court.

(3.) The accused denied the commission of the offence and examined the managing director as Dw. 1. Dw. 1 has proved a lease deed Ext. D 1 whereby the arecanuts in the estate were leased to one Ibrahim till 31-1-1961. He has also proved the leave register maintained in the estate to prove that the accused was on leave from 1-2-61 to 17-2-61. He also gave evidence that he had filed a complaint against Pw. 1 for theft of arecanuts from the estate. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence found that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving entrustment of the arecanuts and acquitted the accused. He, however, directed for the return of the value of the arecanuts to Pw. 1.