9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im, which reads as under: "The charge on you is that before date 29.3.97 complainant Laxmi Prasad was paid borrowed money to you but even after that you were demanding interest at 5%. Your this act is criminal offence under section 3, 4 of Money Lenders Act. Therefore, show cause as to why you should not be held guilty of the said offence." 4. Respondent thereafter, as noticed hereinbefore, filed the aforementioned Civil Suit before the XIVth Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur being civil suit No. 4-A/1998 for recovery of the pledged jewellery. The said suit was decreed directing the appellant to return the said jewellery or in the alternative a decree for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. 5. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith the appellant preferred an appeal thereagainst. The said appeal was allowed by the learned XVIth Additional District Judge, Jabalpur, holding: (i) The judgment of the criminal court rendered on the basis of the purported admission of guilt made by the appellant was not admissible in evidence. (ii) An admission of the guilt on the basis of a wrong legal advice is not binding on the appellant. (iii) The suit was barred in terms of Article 70 of the Limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y by reason whereof a fine of Rs. 150/- was imposed on him. Respondent thereafter served a notice upon the appellant asking him to return the pledged jewellery. As neither the said noticed was replied to nor the jewellery was returned, he filed the suit on 26.06.1998. 10. The cause of action for filing the suit was stated in para 3 of the plaint, which reads as under: "3. The plaintiff through counsel sent registered notice dated 12.5.98 and demanded the pledged jewels. Still the defendant has not returned the jewels of the plaintiff. Therefore, this suit is being preferred. The aforesaid notice sent by the counsel of the plaintiff was received by the defendant on 14.5.98." 11. Respondent examined himself as a witness in the suit. He stated that the appellant being his cousin brother, no document was executed. He also testified that in the criminal case, appellant having admitted his crime and pledge of jewellery with him, a fine of Rs. 150/- was imposed and on in default thereof, imprisonment of five days was ordered. 12. Indisputably, the judgment in the criminal case was marked as an exhibit. Appellant also in his deposition stated as under: "...This is correct that plai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Perumal v. Devarajan and others [AIR 1974 Madras 14], it was held: "2. Even at the outset, I want to state that the view of the lower appellate court that the plaintiff has not established satisfactorily that the first defendant or the second defendant or both were responsible for the theft is perverse and clearly against the evidence and the legal position. The lower appellate Court refused to rely on Exhibit A- 3 which is a certified copy of the judgment in C.C. No. 1949 of 1965. It is true that the evidence discussed in that judgment and the fact that the first defendant had confessed his guilt in his statement is not admissible in evidence in the suit. But it is not correct to state that even the factum that the first and the second defendants were charged under Sections 454, and 380, I.P.C. and they were convicted on those charges could not be admitted. The order of the Criminal Court is, in my opinion, clearly admissible to prove the conviction of the first defendant and the second defendant and that is the only point which the plaintiff had to establish in this case..." A similar issue is dealt in some details in Lalmuni Devi and Ors. v. Jagdish Tiwary and Ors. [AIR 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and anr. [(2002) 8 SCC 87]. 17. 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. [AIR 1954 SC 397], 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. The question came up for con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Court in V.M. Shah case that the finding recorded by the criminal court stands superseded by the finding recorded by the civil court is not correct enunciation of law. Further, the general observations made in Karam Chand case are in context of the facts of the case stated above. The Court was not required to consider the earlier decision of the Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff case as well as Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act." [See also Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.) and Anr. 2009 (3) SCALE 604] Another Constitution Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the question in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. [(2005) 4 SCC 370]. Relying on M.S. Sheriff (supra) as also various other decisions, it was categorically held: "32. Coming to the last contention that an effort should be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 22. So far as the question of the applicability of the period of limitation is concerned, Article 70 of the Limitation Act would be applicable. It reads as under: "Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
