Siya Ram vs State of U.P.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397/401--Revision-Finding of fact--Not possible to reassess evidence and come to different finding in revisional jurisdiction--No perversity in finding--No interference.

C.A. Rahim, J.—This revision arises out of the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kanpur on 24.9.1983 in Criminal Appeal No. 232 of 1983. By that judgment, he has dismissed the appeal preferred by the revisionist against the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur on 4.8.1983 in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1982. The said application was filed for the return of some ornaments. It was stated that those ornaments were the properties of the revisionist, details of which were noted in the application. It was the case of the applicant-revisionist that those ornaments were given to Thakur Prasad on 19.8.1979 for the purpose of obtaining loan or for sale of those ornaments. Since they could not come to terms, he returned leaving those ornaments there by mistake. Later on when he went to the shop of Thakur Prasad, he stated that he deposited those ornaments in the police station but the police did not return those ornaments to him.

On behalf of the applicant, three P.Ws. were examined. It was the case that when they returned due to non-completion of the deal, the ornaments were left at the shop out of mistake. The said version of the applicant was not believed by both the courts below. It appears that he could not produce any document to establish that he was the owner of those ornaments.

Sri R.K. Jain, appearing for the revisionist, has submitted that the statement of Thakur Prasad, shop keeper, was not consistent and it should have been disbelieved. It is an admitted fact that some ornaments were left in the shop of Thakur Prasad unclaimed and those ornaments were deposited to the police station. The revisionist, who was applicant in the trial court, claimed those ornaments as his own. So it is necessary to see how far he could establish his ownership. I do not find any infirmity in the findings of both the courts below. They have taken the view that the applicant could not prove his ownership. At this stage, it is not possible to re-assess the evidence and to come to a different finding on fact in revisional jurisdiction when both the courts are concurrent in their view. There is no material before me to hold that the said finding is perverse. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this revision and the same is dismissed.

The interim stay order dated 21.2.1984 is hereby vacated.