Back
1994 Supreme(MP) 957
I. Panduranga Rao, J.
Ramchandra Kesharwani v. State of M.P.
C.Revn. No. 205 of 1993 (J); Decided on 30.11.1994*.
Manish Datt for applicant; R.K. Khare, Govt. Advocate for State.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 452 -- property involved in theft case -- case concluded -- complainant died -- property may be deLi"Vered to his heir -- demand of succession certificate unjustified.
(2) Succession Act, 1925 -- S. 372 (3) succession certificate -- needed for recovering any debt advanced by deceased creditor.
¼1½ naM Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 452 & laifRr pksjh ds ekeys esa varxzZLr & ekeyk lekIr & ifjoknh e`r & laifRr mlds mRrjkf/kdkjh dks ifjnRr djuk pkfg, & mRrjkf/kdkj izek.ki= dh ek¡x U;k;ksfpr ugha gSA
¼2½ mRrjkf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 1925 & /kkjk 372 ¼3½ & mRrjkf/kdkj izek.ki= & e`r m/kkj nsus okys ds fdlh _.k dh olwyh ds fy, vko‘;d gksrk gSA
This is a revision by the son of de facto complainant, challenging the order of the learned Special Railway Magistrate, Jabalpur dated 23.3.1993 dismissing his application filed under section 452 Cr.P.C. for delivering custody of the case property, the details of which are given in paragraph-4 of the revision petition.
The facts of the case are that when the applicant's father, by name, Hiralal Kesharwani was travelling on 24.12.1974 by Bina-Itarsi Train alongwith his wife, there was a theft of his suit-case, alleged to be containing the gold ornaments mentioned in paragraph-4 of the revision petition. Basing on the report lodged by him, the police have investigated and prosecuted 5 persons and they were convicted u/Ss. 379, 411/34 I.P.C. On the ground that Hiralal Kesharwani died on 30.10.1985, the applicant has filed an application before the Special Rly. Magistrate for return of the property. The Spl. Rly. Magistrate has rejected his application for want of filing the succession certificate.
Section-372 (3) of Indian Succession Act requires a succession certificate to be obtained in respect of any debt or debts due to the deceased creditor or in respect of portions thereof. This is not a claim in respect of any debt due to the deceased, which necessitates the filing of succession certificate. The order of the learned Special Rly. Magistrate insisting on the production of succession certificate for return of the case property to the applicant is, therefore, erroneous especially when the other legal heirs of the deceased Hiralal appeared in the Court and stated that they had no objection for returning the property in favour of the applicant.
The revision is, therefore, allowed. The property is directed to be returned to the applicant.
