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.

(2.) MR . Keer's first point was that the District Magistrate had no authority under the provisions of Section 520, Criminal Procedure Code, to upset the order 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 u/s. 520, Criminal Procedure Code 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 Procedure Code, 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 Procedure Code, 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 Procedure Code, 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.

(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 :