Skip to content


Queen-empeess Vs. Tribhovan Manekchand and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR9Bom131
AppellantQueen-empeess
RespondentTribhovan Manekchand and ors.
Excerpt:
.....individual as arbitrator had become infructuous because of his demise held, high court of bombay, is not correct in rejecting arbitration petition filed by appellant on ground of lack of jurisdiction. - 43 in which the accused had been acquitted, yet failed in his suit against the police officer, retaining a ring pending the magistrate's disposal of his application for instruction as to disposal of it under stat. div 172. 3. these cases show that the magistrate may make an order on such evidence as is available, which order is good as to the delivery and possession, without depriving the real owner of any action that he may have for the assertion of his right in the civil court......disposal.2. where there has been a trial and an order by the trying court under section 517 of the criminal procedure code (act x of 1882) that concludes the immediate right to possession. where, as in this case, an older has to be made under section 523, the magistrate may in the enquiry proceed on such evidence as is available, and make an order for handing property to the per-bon he thinks entitled, this does not conclude the right of any person. the real owner may proceed against the holder of the articles or for damages as for a conversion. it does not seem necessary, therefore, for this court to interfere: see bullock v. dunlop l.r. 2 ex. div. 43 in which the accused had been acquitted, yet failed in his suit against the police officer, retaining a ring pending the magistrate's.....
Judgment:

West, J.

1. 'Confession' in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act I of 1872 means, as in Section 24. a confession made by an accused person,' which it is proposed to prove against him to establish an offence. For such a purpose a confession might be inadmissible' which yet for other purposes would be admissible as an admission under Section 18 against the person who made it (section 21.) in his character of one setting up an interest in property, the object of litigation or judicial enquiry and disposal.

2. Where there has been a trial and an order by the trying Court under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882) that concludes the immediate right to possession. Where, as in this case, an older has to be made under Section 523, the Magistrate may in the enquiry proceed on such evidence as is available, and make an order for handing property to the per-Bon he thinks entitled, This does not conclude the right of any person. The real owner may proceed against the holder of the articles or for damages as for a conversion. It does not seem necessary, therefore, for this Court to interfere: see Bullock v. Dunlop L.R. 2 Ex. Div. 43 in which the accused had been acquitted, yet failed in his suit against the police officer, retaining a ring pending the Magistrate's disposal of his application for instruction as to disposal of it under Stat. 2 &3 Vic, cap. 71. Reference may be made also to Dover v. Child L.R. 1 Ex. Div 172.

3. These cases show that the Magistrate may make an order on such evidence as is available, which order is good as to the delivery and possession, without depriving the real owner of any action that he may have for the assertion of his right in the Civil Court. In the Code of Criminal Procedure the provisions in this respect are less explicit than in the English Statutes, but the principle recognized is the same, and leads to similar con sequences.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //