MAHANTA SINGH NATHA SINGH Vs. HET RAM PAKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mahanta Singh, Asa Singh and Hazara Singh were sent up to take their trial under Section 458, Penal Code on the allegation that on the night between the 6/7th of March, 1951, they and others entered the house of Pakhar and that they beat him and broke open the locks of the trunks and looted property alleged to be of the value of Rs. 35,000/- in cash and clothes and valuable worth about Rs. 15,000/- They were tried by a Magistrate of the First Class, who after considering the evidence in the case, passed an order on 30-5-1952, acquitting them. While passing his order, the Magistrate made another order that Rs. 1300/- be returned to Mahanta Singh accused as also the gold ornaments taken into possession from Kesar Singh and that Rs. 900/- be returned to Asa Singh. From this order a petition was filed on 25-6-1952, to the District Magistrate, in which it was prayed that the order of acquittal be set aside and that currency notes of the value of Rs. 1300/- recovered from Mahanta Singh and those of the value of Rs. 900/- recovered from Asa Singh and other property be restored to the petitioner, who was Het Ram son of Pokhar. The District Magistrate does not seem to have heard this case with the promptitude that it deserved, as it came up for hearing before him at a very late stage. On 14-2-1953, he passed an order, in which he said that, in his opinion, the acquittal was wrong and that the accusd should have been tried unedr Section 395 or Section 397, Penal Code, but that as they had been acquitted, Section 403, Criminal P. C., barred a fresh trial. He could not have taken steps for an appeal to be filed in this Court against the order of acquittal, as on that day, 14-2-1953, the time of six months allowed for an appeal had long expired. The District Magistrate took the second prayer into consideration, which was for the restoration of the property. He came to the conclusion that though the confessional statement of an accused person may be inadmissible so far as his trial is concerned, it could yet be taken into consideration for purposes of Section 517, Criminal P. C., in order to determine the person to whose custody the property should be delivered. In the present case, the District Magistrate took into account the confessions of the accused and the statements of the police officers, to whom those confessional statements had been made because of which the currency notes and the gold 'kantha' had been recovered. He ordered that the currency notes of the value of Rs. 2200/- and the 'kantha' be restored to the petitioner. From this order of restoration a revision has been brought to this Court.

(2.) Mr. Keer's first point was that the District Magistrate had no authority under the provisions of Section 520, Criminal P. C., to upset the erder of the Magistrate. According to Mr. Keer, the District Magistrate was neither a Court of appeal, nor a Court of revision and, therefore, he could not pass an order Under Section 520, Cr. P. C. Section 520 runs as follows : (His Lordship quoted the provisions of the section and then stated). In my opinion, the District Magistrate is both a Court of appeal as well as a Court of revision. He is a Court of appeal under Section 515, Criminal P. C., from an order passed under Section 514 by any Magistrate. He is a Court of revision under the provisions of Sections 435, 436 and 437, Criminal P. C., and he has certain powers, which he can exercise himself. Under Section 435 he has the power to call for the records of any Magistrate. Under Section 436, he has the power in a case, in which he finds that a complaint has been dismissed or that an accused has been discharged, which orders are, in his opinion, wrong, to order further enquiry. Under Section 437 he can, in the case of a person, who has been improperly discharged, direct that he should be committed for trial. As I have said before, under Section 515, Criminal P. C., he acts as a Court of appeal from the order of a Magistrate of any class, in which the question of the forfeiture of a bond is involved. In my opinion, he is thus both a Court of appeal and a Court of revision. The matter need not be discussed at great length in view of the Full Bench judgment of the Rangoon Court in -- 'U Po Hla v. Ko Po Shein', AIR 1929 Rang 97 (FB) (A). The Full Bench, while dscussing this case, held as follows :

(3.) Mr. Keer's next point was that Section 25, Evidence Act, forbids the use of the confessional statements of the accused persons, by which currency notes of the value of Rs. 2200/-had been produced by them and given over to the police. Pieces of gold ornaments were recovered from a goldsmith, Kesar Singh P. W. 14, who had stated that he had been given gold by the accused Mahanta Singh. Section 25, Evidence Act runs as follows: