TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aments. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... What would be the period of limitation for institution of a suit for recovery of `pledged ornaments' is the question involved herein. 3. It arises in the following factual matrix: On or about 26.06.1998, the respondent filed a civil suit against the appellant for recovery of certain items of jewellery allegedly pledged with him on 2.12.1987 for the purpose of obtaining loan of a sum of ₹ 7000/-. On the premise that the appellant had violated the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934 in relation to the aforementioned grant of loan, a criminal proceeding was initiated against him, which was marked as Case No. 511 of 1997. In the said criminal case, he admitted his guilt. A fine of ₹ 150/- was imposed on him. The charge was read over to him, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Article 70 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit has rightly been found to have been instituted within the period of limitation. (ii) Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, the judgment of the criminal court was admissible in evidence. (iii) In terms of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, things admitted need not be proved. The suit filed by the respondent has rightly been decreed. 9. Before adverting to the rival contentions of the parties raised before us, we may notice that the purported pledge of jewellery was made by the respondent herein for taking a loan of ₹ 7,000/- on 2.12.1987. Appellant indisputably is a money lender. A criminal case for charging excess interest was instituted against him on 29.03.1997. On or about 29.11.1997, he pleaded guilty by reason whereof a fine of ₹ 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nearest agnate of the testator or that Charu had murdered his adoptive father, though these matters had been assumed as facts. The courts below have referred to good and reliable evidence in support of the finding that Girish was the nearest reversioner to the estate of the testator. If the will is a valid and genuine will, there is intestacy in respect of the interest created in favour of Charu if he was the murderer of the testator. On this question the courts below have assumed on the basis of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court in the sessions trial that Charu was the murderer. Though that judgment is relevant only to show that there was such a trial resulting in the conviction and sentence of Charu to transportation for life, it is not evidence of the fact that Charu was the murderer. That question has to be decided on evidence. In 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 clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi [(2004) 1 SCC 438] to contend that a judgment of a civil court shall be binding on the criminal court but the converse is not true. Therein it was held: (3) A decision by a criminal court does not bind the civil court while a decision by the civil court binds the criminal court. An order passed by the Executive Magistrate in proceedings under Sections 145/146 of the Code is an order by a criminal court and that too based on a summary enquiry. The order is entitled to respect and wait before the competent court at the interlocutory stage. At the stage of final adjudication of rights, which would be on the evidence adduced before the court, the order of the Magistrate is only one out of several pieces of evidence. With respect, the ratio laid down therein may not be entirely correct being in conflict with a Three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings would be relevant and the court may hold that it conclusively establishes the title as well as possession of B over the property. In such case, A may be convicted for trespass. The illustration to Section 42 which is quoted above makes the position clear. Hence, in each and every case, the first question which would require consideration is -- whether judgment, order or decree is relevant, if relevant -- its effect. It may be relevant for a limited purpose, such as, motive or as a fact in issue. This would depend upon the facts of each case. It is, however, significant to notice a decision of this Court in M/s Karam Chand Ganga Prasad Anr. etc. v. Union of India Ors. [(1970) 3 SCC 694], wherein it was categorically held that the decisions of the civil court will be binding on the criminal courts but the converse is not true, was overruled, stating: 33. Hence, the observation made by this 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r: 58 - Facts admitted need not be proved No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. In view of the aforementioned provision, there cannot be any doubt or dispute that a thing admitted need not be proved. [See Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another v. Girdharilal Yadav (2004) 6 SCC 325, L.K. Verma v. HMT Ltd. and Another (2006) 2 SCC 269, Avtar Singh and Others v. Gurdial Singh and Others (2006) 12 SCC 552,Gannmani Anasuya and Others v. Parvatini Amarendra Chowdhary and Others (2007) 10 SCC 296] 21. 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 shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
