The appellant is a pawn broker of Ambattur near Madras.
He, however, held that, in the circumstances of the case, the jewels and other valuables in question companyld number be said to have been in the possession of the companyplainant within the meaning of Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code.
At the trial the companyplainant gave evidence in support of his case and relied upon two documents executed by the appellant, the promissory numbere for Rs.
On April 9, 1957, the companyplainant discovered that the appellant had removed from the said box jewels and silver articles worth Rs.
15,000 in a locked box kept with the said companyplainant, the key of the lock remaining with the appellant.
That is why he took the view that the offence of theft had number been proved against the appellant and so he acquitted him of the said offence.
14,000 without his knowledge or companysent.
The case against the appellant was that he visited the companyplainants house between November 3, 1956 and April 9, 1957 for transacting business with him when he opened the locked box and took away a large number of gold and silver jewels.
P 2 9 4 1957 .
The learned magistrate rejected this companytention and found that the appellant had in fact removed the valuables from the box and had voluntarily promised to restore them by April 15, 1957.
15,000 as security for the said sum and in accordance with the custom obtaining in Katha transactions the appellant had placed gold and silver, jewels valued at about Rs.
It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed.
The appellant companytended before the trial magistrate that these documents had been executed by him under companyrcion, threat and undue influence practised on him by the companyplainant.
15,745 Ex.
14,000 had been taken away by the appellant without the companyplainants knowledge.
In the latter document the appellant had admitted that for the amount of Rs.
The appellant promised to bring the jewels back from his house and put them in the box by April 15, 1957, but he failed to keep his promise.
He had a Katha account with the companyplainant Jalamchand Lodha under which on November 3, 1956, he owed him Rs.
On these facts alleged by the companyplainant a charge sheet was submitted against the appellant under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code.
This order of acquittal was challenged by the companyplainant by his revisional application before the High Court of Madras.
P l 3 11 1956 and the agreement Ex.
15,745 due by him to the companyplainant the appellants jewels box had been kept with the companyplainant and that out of the said box jewels or the value of Rs.
Gajendragadkar, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Madras by which the order of acquittal passed in favour of the appellant by the trial magistrate has been set aside and the proceedings have been remitted to the companyrt below for disposal in accordance with, law.
