Seshagiri Aiyar, J.
1. I cannot help saying that in this case, the Magistrate has misunderstood his functions. There was a pledge by the accused to the complainant of certain jewels in 1915. Thereupon a suit was brought by the complainant against the accused for payment of the pledge money. A decree was obtained and after the decree, an arrangement evidenced by Exhibits 1 and II was come to between the parties, to the effect that the jewels pledged with the complainant should be delivered to the accused. The allegation now is that after the date of the adjustment the accused had undertaken to sell these jewels and pay the sale-proceeds to the complainant in discharge of his decree debt. The moment that Exhibits I and II were put in to prove that there had been an adjustment of the claim between the complainant and the accused, the case ought to have been thrown out. Instead of that, the Magistrate launches into an enquiry whether Exhibits I and II represent the real transaction between the parties or merely a benami arrangement between them. This is a subject upon which even Civil Courts find the greatest difficulty in coming to a correct conclusion and the Magistrate will be certainly in a less advantageous position in coming to a decision upon it. The Magistrate ought not to have taken upon himself to decide such a question.
2. Upon the production of Exhibits I and II, there was an end of the case,
3. The conviction will be reversed and the fine, if levied, will be refunded to the accused.