Jagdish Rai vs State of Punjab

Pritpal Singh, J.—This revision is directed against the order dated January 4, 1991 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the petitioners appeal against the order of the trial Court, convicting him under section 420, Indian Penal Code, and sentencing him to one year''s rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ was dismissed.

The petitioner Jagdish Rai was Secretary of the Butahri Khalsa Cooperative Agricultural Society Butahri. A criminal complaint under section 420, Indian Penal Code, was filed against him by the complainant Ujagar Singh (PW 11 alleging that he had taken loan from the aforesaid Society in September/October 1976 and a sum of Rs. 4800/ was outstanding against him in this regard in the month of July 1977. The petitioner represented to him on July 15, 1977 that in case he failed to pay this amount, the recovery would be effected from him by the Society by adopting coercive measure and he was likely to be arrested. On this representation the complainant was induced to execute a pronote for Rs. 9600/ in favour of the petitioner promised to discharge his liability forthwith It is said that in March, 1978 the complainant paid Rs. 56000/ to the petitioner and got back the pronote from him but subsequently in May, 1978 he discovered that petitioner had failed to discharge his outstanding liability of Rs. 4800/.

The learned trial Court, on appraisal of evidence, held that the complainant had been able to prove this story and in the result convicted and sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above. The appeal against this order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, vide the impugned order.

Section 420 Indian Penal Code, provides punishment for offence of cheating is defined in Section 415, as follows :

"Cheating : Whoever by deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were rot so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".

Explanation : A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."

In the present case if the complaint had been able to prove that the petitioner had dishonestly represented to him that if he failed to pay the outstanding amount to the Society, he was likely to be arrested and thereby induced him to execute the aforesaid pronote, then it could be reasonably contended that the petitioner had cheated the complainant. However, a perusal of the statement of the complainant who entered the witnessbox as PW 1 reveals that all that had, happened was that an agreement was effected between the petitioner and the complainant that the petitioner will pay off the debt of the complainant and in he thereof the complainant executed a pronote for Rs. 9600/ in petitioner''s favour. It is a pure and simple case of contract, between the parties which, is of civil nature. As the petitioner allegdly failed to pay the loan amount to the Society, he had committed breach of contract for which the provisions of Section 420 Indian Penal Code, are not attracted. The complainant never alleged in his statement that the petitioner had dishonestly represented to him that if he did not pay the arrears of loan amounting to Rs. 4800/ immediately to the Society, he was liable to he arrested. In my view, therefore, from the facts proved on the record the commission of an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code, by the petitioner is not proved.

For these reasons, this revision is allowed, the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted.