9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 992 - SC - Indian LawsLaw relating to the admissibility of a judgment in a criminal proceedings vis- -vis the civil proceedings and vice-versa governed by the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act - Whether the admission of guilt in a criminal case would be admissible in evidence in civil case - Period of limitation for institution of a suit for recovery of pledged ornaments - Appellant is a money lender - A criminal case for charging excess interest was instituted against him - he pleaded guilty by reason whereof a fine of 150/- was imposed on him - Respondent served a notice - As neither the said noticed was replied to nor the jewellery was returned he filed the suit. HC opined that the suit had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation having been brought within a period of three years from the date of refusal of the demand to return the pledged ornaments. the admission of guilt in a criminal case would be admissible in evidence being relevant to the fact in issue. HELD THAT - A civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding may go on simultaneously. No statute puts an embargo in relation thereto. A decision in a criminal case is not binding on a civil court. In M.S. Sheriff Anr. v. State of Madras Ors. 1954 (3) TMI 76 - SUPREME COURT a Constitution Bench of this Court was seized with a question as to whether a civil suit or a criminal case should be stayed in the event both are pending. It was opined that the criminal matter should be given precedence. In regard to the possibility of conflict in decisions it was held that the law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other or even relevant except for certain limited purposes such as sentence or damages. It was held that the only relevant consideration was the likelihood of embarrassment. If a primacy is given to a criminal proceeding indisputably the civil suit must be determined on its own keeping in view the evidence which has been brought on record before it and not in terms of the evidence brought in the criminal proceeding. It is now almost well-settled that save and except for Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act which refers to Sections 40 41 and 42 thereof a judgment of a criminal court shall not be admissible in a civil suit. We therefore are of the opinion that although the judgment in a criminal case was not relevant in evidence for the purpose of proving his civil liability his admission in the civil suit was admissible. The question as to whether the explanation offered by him should be accepted or not is a matter which would fall within the realm of appreciation of evidence. The Trial Court had accepted the same. The first appellate court refused to consider the effect thereof in its proper perspective. The appellate court proceeded on the basis that as the judgment of the criminal court was not admissible in evidence the suit could not have been decreed on the said basis. For the said purpose the admission made by the appellant in his deposition as also the effect of charge had not been taken into consideration. We therefore are of the opinion that the High Court cannot be said to have committed any error in interfering with the judgment of the first appellate court. Applicability of the period of limitation - Article 70 of the Limitation Act would be applicable - period of limitation thus begins to run from the date of refusal after demand. Appellant did not respond to the notice issued by the respondent asking him to return the pledged jewellery. The date of receipt of such a notice is 14.05.1998. The suit having been filed on 26.06.1998 thus must be held to have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Having regard to the fact that the averments contained in the plaint were not traversed the same would be deemed to have been admitted by him in terms of Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Gautam Sarup v. Leela Jetly 2008 (3) TMI 681 - SUPREME COURT this Court held 14. An admission made in a pleading is not to be treated in the same manner as an admission in a document. An admission made by a party to the lis is admissible against him proprio vigore. Therefore there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly.
Issues Involved:
1. Period of limitation for instituting a suit for recovery of pledged ornaments. 2. Admissibility of a criminal court judgment in a civil proceeding. 3. Applicability of Article 70 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 4. Effect of admission of guilt in criminal proceedings on civil liability. Detailed Analysis: 1. Period of Limitation for Instituting a Suit for Recovery of Pledged Ornaments: The central question was the period of limitation for filing a suit to recover pledged ornaments. The factual matrix involved a civil suit filed on 26.06.1998 for recovery of jewellery pledged on 2.12.1987. The appellant argued that the suit was barred by limitation, as it was filed more than ten years after the alleged pledge. The High Court, however, found that the suit was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, as it was brought within three years from the date of refusal of the demand to return the pledged ornaments. 2. Admissibility of a Criminal Court Judgment in a Civil Proceeding: The appellant contended that the judgment of the criminal court, based on an admission of guilt, was not admissible in the civil suit. The High Court disagreed, holding that the admission of guilt in a criminal case was admissible in evidence as it was relevant to the fact in issue. The Supreme Court reiterated that, according to Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, a judgment in a criminal case is admissible if it is a relevant fact in issue. However, it emphasized that a judgment in a criminal case is admissible for a limited purpose and cannot solely determine a civil proceeding. 3. Applicability of Article 70 of the Limitation Act, 1963: The appellant argued that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 70 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 70 specifies a three-year limitation period for recovering movable property deposited or pawned, starting from the date of refusal after demand. The Supreme Court noted that the respondent had served a notice on the appellant on 12.05.1998, demanding the return of the pledged jewellery. As the appellant did not respond, the cause of action arose from the date of refusal, which was 14.05.1998. Since the suit was filed on 26.06.1998, it was within the prescribed limitation period. 4. Effect of Admission of Guilt in Criminal Proceedings on Civil Liability: The appellant admitted his guilt in a criminal case for charging excess interest, resulting in a fine. The Supreme Court clarified that while a criminal court's judgment is not binding on a civil court, an admission made in a criminal proceeding can be relevant in a civil suit. The appellant's admission of guilt and the pledge of jewellery were deemed admissible in the civil suit. The Court emphasized that an admission made in a pleading is admissible against the party making it. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court did not err in interfering with the first appellate court's judgment. It held that the suit was filed within the limitation period and that the appellant's admission in the criminal case was relevant and admissible in the civil suit. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
