In Re: Pandharinath Pundlik Revankar

Batchelor, J.—This is an application for revision of an order passed u/s 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Fourth Presidency Magistrate who convicted one Peter George of criminal breach of trust in respect of a bundle of currency notes and ordered that one of the notes now in dispute should be returned to the Crown, the notes having been misappropriated from the Presidency Magistrate''s Court. The note now in dispute had been transferred to the possession of the present petitioner in this way: Peter George made a purchase from a neighbouring jeweller and tendered in payment the Rs. 100 note. The neighbouring jeweller was unable to cash the note at the moment, and, therefore, took it over to the present petitioner who supplied the cash. There is no allegation of any bad faith or fraud on the part of the present petitioner. That being so, it seems to us a case for the application of the general rule that property in a currency note passes by mere delivery: see the cases of The Collector of Salem (1873) 7 M.H.C. 233 and Empress v. Joggessur Mochi (1887) ILR 3 Cal. 379. The petitioner consequently obtained a good title to the note, notwithstanding that Peter George had no title. The order under discussion is, therefore, in our opinion, unsustainable. It is true that orders u/s 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code are discretionary, but the discretion is open to correction where, as here, it has been exercised in violation of accepted judicial principles.

We, therefore, set aside the order and direct that the currency note be returned to the petitioner.