A court has the jurisdiction under section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code to order the return of property to a person who has a better title to the property, even if the accused has been acquitted of the offence relating to the property.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 452 - DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY - RETURN OF PROPERTY TO COMPLAINANT - ACCUSED ACQUITTED OF OFFENCE RELATING TO PROPERTY - COMPLAINANT HAVING PRIMA FACIE TITLE TO PROPERTY - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO ORDER RETURN OF PROPERTY TO COMPLAINANT.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant alleged that the accused had committed criminal breach of trust by not returning an electric motor that was given to him for irrigation purposes. The accused claimed that the motor was given to him in satisfaction of a debt owed by the complainant. The trial court convicted the accused, but the appellate court acquitted him, holding that the matter was of a civil nature. The complainant appealed, seeking the return of the motor.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the accused had not established his title to the motor, even prima facie, and that the complainant had a better title to the property. The court also held that the trial court had erred in not exercising its jurisdiction under section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do substantial justice and order the return of the motor to the complainant.
Issues: 1. Whether the accused had established his title to the electric motor. 2. Whether the complainant had a better title to the electric motor. 3. Whether the trial court erred in not exercising its jurisdiction under section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do substantial justice and order the return of the motor to the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the accused had not established his title to the motor, even prima facie, because he had not led any evidence to prove that he had acquired title to the motor from the complainant. 2. The court held that the complainant had a better title to the motor because he had admitted that the motor initially belonged to the complainant and that he had only been given permission to use it for a period of time. 3. The court held that the trial court had erred in not exercising its jurisdiction under section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do substantial justice and order the return of the motor to the complainant because the complainant had a better title to the motor and the accused had not established his title to the motor.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the appellate court, and ordered the return of the electric motor to the complainant.

JUDGMENT - SHARAD MANOHAR, J.:---This is an appeal filed by the original complainant whose complaint against the respondent accused in respect of an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code has been turned down by the lower Appellate Court. The appeal, however, is restricted to the question of return of the property which is the subject matter of this criminal case.

2. The facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal may be very briefly stated as follows :

For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as complainant and accused. The father of the accused was owner of land bearing S. No. 51/1, in which there is a well. On 20th March, 1973 an agreement was arrived at between the complainant on the one hand and father of the accused on the other, by virtue of which the complainant got possession of the land for the purpose of raising banana crop on the same for a period of two years, for certain fixed considerations. The complainant, it was understood would install electric motor on the well for the purpose of irrigation of the land. After the expiry of the period of two year, he was to remove the motor and hand over possession back to the father of the accused.

After the period of two years, the complainant handed over possession of the land back to the accused who by that time had started looking after the property belonging to his father. The contention of the complainant was that he wanted to take away the motor, but the accused requested him to keep the motor on the well so that he could derogate his banana plantation which was there on the land at that particular time. The complainant agreed but accused but accused did not return the motor even after the agreed period and hence ultimately the complainant approached the police. The accused was called by the police to the Police Station and in the presence of the police the accused executed a writing agreeing to return the electric motor by 31-7-1977. But even by that time the motor was not returned with the result that ultimately the complainant had to file the complaint in question on 9-8-1977 against the accused for having committed offence of criminal breach of trust under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The defence of the accused was that the complainant owned certain monies to the accused in connection with banana plantations which was a transaction on partnership basis and that in that transaction, the electric motor was given by the complainant to the accused in satisfaction of his debt to the accused. His fathers contention was that the complainant had written a letter addressed to his own son stating the motor should be allowed to remain with the accused in discharge of the debt. The letter was sought to be produced by the accused in evidence. Finally it was contended that the matter was of civil character and no criminal offence was made out against the accused.

4. The trial Court rejected the defence of the accused and convicted him under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 300/-. It may be stated here that during the pendency of the case, the motor pump had been attached by the Court and it was lying in the possession of the Court. The learned Magistrate passed an order under section 452 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing that the electric motor in question be given into possession of the complainant.

5. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge disagreed with the view taken by the trial Court. The learned Sessions Judge relied mainly upon the writing Exhibit 30. The said document could not be said to have been proved at all. Even the accused himself had not identified the signature of the complainant and no evidence had been led to prove the signature of the complainant on the said document. Exhibit 30. The complainant flatly denied having written and signed any such writing in favour of the accused. All the same the learned Judge was of the view th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis