BHAGCHAND Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by a person from whom certain properties, alleged to have been stolen, were taken during the investigation of an offence and produced in Court, the case ending in acquittal in the manner presently to be set out.

(2.) THE original owner wanted the properties to be returned to him notwithstanding that the case had ended in an acquittal. The person from whom the properties were taken, who is the pawnee through the accused, urged that no offence having been proved to have been committed, the normal rule that the properties should be returned to the person from whom they are taken, should not be departed from, and they should be restored to him; he was a pawnee for value and had acted in good faith. The Magistrate directed that the properties should be restored to the original owner whose story of the theft had not been believed. In revision before the Sessions Judge, the Magistrate's order was maintained whereupon the pawnee has come to this Court in revision.

(3.) THE facts are simple. One Laxminarayan alleged that a fellow villager, Bherusingh by name, had entered his house on the 16th of April 1964 and had stolen a number of properties among which were four ornaments that are the subject-matter of the present proceedings. He gave the First Information report on the 19th. During investigation, Bherusingh took the police to the shop of the present applicant Bhagchand, got these four ornaments recovered and gave the following story :-Laxminarayan and he were partners in a business. Wanting money for this venture, Laxminarayan brought these ornaments from his house and asked Bherusingh to pawn them for a sum of money with Bhagchand who was in this line of business. Each of the four ornaments were pawned on a different occasion but they were all in February and March 1964 well before the date of the alleged theft as given by Laxminarayan. In fact Laxminarayan himself accompanied Bherusingh at the time of the pawning though in the books of the pawnee the transactions were recorded in the name of Bheru only. Having done this, Laxminarayan thought fit to put the entire burden on Bheru and try to get back the properties without paying anything. Accordingly, he brought this case falsely.