LexSETH RAMDAYAL JAT versus LAXMI PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009]7 S.C.R 17 SETH RAMDAYAL JAT A v LAXMI PRASAD Civil Appeal No. 2543 of 2009 APRIL 15, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) _,, "\ Limitation Act, 1963: Article 70 - Suit for recovery of ' pledged ornaments - Applicability of Article 70 - Held: Is applicable - In terms of Article 70, period of limitation is three years and begins to run from the date of refusal after demand c - Money lender did not respond to the notice issued by borrower asking him to return the pledged jewellery- Suit was filed within one and a half months after date of receipt of such notice - Thus, was instituted within the period of limitation - r Admission of money lender was recorded in writing - He D accepted that he had made admission in the criminal case, the same was admissible in evidence - Thus, suit was rightly ; decreed in favour of borrower - Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.43 and 58. Evidence Act, 1872: ss.43 -Admissibility of judgment in E criminal proceedings vis-a-vis civil proceedings - Held: Save . and except for s. 43, judgment of criminal court shall not be admissible in civil suit - However, admission made by party in previous proceeding would be admissible - Judgment in F criminal case shall be admissible provided it is a relevant fact in issue, otherwise its admissibility is limited - Thing admitted need not be proved. Respondent pledged certain items of jewellery with appellant-money lender for obtaining loan. Appellant G charged excess interest. Respondent filed criminal case __,. against appellant. Appellant pleaded guilty and fine was imposed. Respondent served notice to the appellant on 12.5.98 to return the pledge jewellery, however, jewellery 17 H 18 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 7 S.C.R. A was not returned. On 26.6.98 Respondent filed suit for recovery of the pledged jewellery. Suit was decreed in favour of respondent. Appellant filed appeal which was allowed. Respondent then filed second appeal. High Court held that the suit was filed within a period of three years B from the date of refusal of the demand to return the pledged ornaments and the admission of guilt in criminal case would be admissible in evidence. Hence the present • appeal. ;.. Dismissing the appeal, the Court c HELD: 1.1 The law relating to the admissibility of a judgment in a criminal proceedings vis-a-vis the civil proceedings and vice-versa is governed by the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. In terms of s. 43 of the Act, the judgment in a criminal case shall be admissible provided D it is a relevant fact in issue. Its admissibility otherwise is limited. A judgment in a criminal case, thus, is admissible for a limited purpose. Relying only on or on the basis thereof, a civil proceeding cannot be determined, but that would not mean that it is not admissible for any purpose ' ~ whatsoever. [Paras 13, 14 and 15] [25-F; 25-H; 26-A; E 27-H; 28-A] Anil Behari Ghosh v. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi and Ors. AIR 1955 SC 566; Perumal v. Devarajan and Ors. AIR 1974 Madras 14; Lalmuni Devi and Ors. v. Jagdish Tiwary and Ors. AIR 2005 Patna 51; Shanti Kumar Panda v. Shakuntala Devi F (2004) 1 SCC 438; K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police and anr. (2002) 8 sec 87 - referred to. 1.2 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 G binding on a civil court. 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. [Para 17] H [28-E; 29-B] '· SETH RAMDAYAL JAT V LAXMI PRASAD 19 - * M. S. Sheriff & Anr. v. State of Madras and Ors. Al R 1954 A SC 397; Mis Karam Chand Ganga Prasad and Anr. etc. v. Union of India and Ors. (1970) 3 SCC 694; Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and Anr. v. State (Delhi Admn.)and Anr. 2009 (3) SCALE 604; Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370; P. Swaroopa B Rani v. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu AIR 2008 SC 1884 - referred to. ""\ 1.3 Save and except for Section 43 of the Evidence Act which refers to Sections 40, 41, and 42 thereof, a judgment of a criminal court shall not be admissible in a c civil suit. What, however, would be admissible is the admission made by a party in a previou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.