Pushkar Singh vs State Of Madhya Bharat And Anr.

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: supreme-court

Case Number: Criminal Revision No. 139 of 1950

Decision Date: 18 September, 1951

Coram: Mahajan

In this case, the Supreme Court considered an appeal filed by special leave against a judgment and order dated 4-December-1950 of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Criminal Revision No 139 of 1950. The appellant, Pushkar Singh, had been tried before the Additional City Magistrate of Lashkar for offences alleged under Sections 449 and 372 of the Gwalior Penal Code. The magistrate concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish any case against the accused. Specifically, the magistrate disbelieved the prosecution’s claim that Pushkar Singh had introduced the money into his house and handed it over to the police, and held that the seized sum could not be said to belong to the complainant nor to be the proceeds of any theft committed in the house. Accordingly, Pushkar Singh was acquitted. The magistrate further ordered that the articles and the sum of Rs 463 recovered from the house be returned to the accused after the lapse of the period allowed for filing an appeal. An application for revision filed by the complainant before the Sessions Judge was dismissed.

Subsequently, Mst Kaushillya Bai, who was the widow of the complainant, filed a revision application in the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Bharat, Gwalior, seeking to set aside the magistrate’s order that the Rs 463 be returned to Pushkar Singh. The High Court allowed the revision and directed that the amount of Rs 463 be awarded to Mst Kaushillya Bai rather than to the appellant.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s directive could not be sustained because the magistrate had made clear factual findings that no offence had been committed with respect to the Rs 463 and that the money did not belong to the complainant. Those findings formed the basis of Pushkar Singh’s acquittal and of the order directing the return of the seized sum to him. The Court held that, absent a finding that an offence had been committed concerning the money, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to order payment of the amount to the complainant. The Court also rejected the High Court’s view that, although the stolen property consisted of currency notes, those notes might have been altered by the accused, finding no evidence to support such a conclusion. Moreover, the Court emphasized that, unless the acquittal were formally altered to a conviction by due legal process, Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code could not be invoked to justify the payment to Mst Kaushillya Bai. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the magistrate’s original order directing that the sum of Rs 463 be returned to Pushkar Singh. No order as to costs was made in these proceedings.

The Court issued a directive that the sum of Rs. 463, which had been the subject of the dispute, should be paid by Mst. Kaushillya Bai to the petitioner. In effect, the judgment required that Mst. Kaushillya Bai be ordered to deliver the amount of Rs. 463 directly to the petitioner, thereby fulfilling the monetary aspect of the relief sought. The Court further stated that it would not make any determination concerning the allocation of costs in these proceedings, meaning that no party would be awarded or required to bear the costs associated with the appeal or trial. Consequently, the order concerning costs was left open, and the parties were to bear their own expenses as the Court did not impose any cost order.