Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Gulam Minhajuddin, J.—This revision has been filed u/s 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 1-1-2000 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 97/1998 arising out of the judgment dated 8-5-1998 passed by J.M.F.C., Raigarh (Shri A.B. Toppo) in Criminal Case No. 551/1995, whereby the conviction of the applicant recorded by the J.M.F.C. for offence u/s 420 of IPC, has been confirmed but the sentence imposed in so far as it relates to imprisonment has been modified and reduced from 2 years rigorous imprisonment to 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Brief facts of the case, according to prosecution version, are that the applicant/revisionist has purchased 173 bags of Sawarna paddy from the complainant valued at Rs. 50,000/- with an assurance that the applicant would pay the price of the paddy within a period of 11/2 months, but he did not pay the same to the complainant. When the complainant-Hetram was in need of money to purchase a new motorcycle and on a demand being made by the Complainant-Hetram for the same, the applicant/revisionist had given his recently purchased motorcycle (Suzuki) to the complainant Hetram with an understanding that the Motorcycle is being handed over in lieu of part payment of the price of Paddy and the applicant will be paying the remaining price within a reasonable time. Thereafter, the applicant neither got the motorcycle registered in the name of the complainant Hetram nor paid the price and threatened the complainant that if his motorcycle is not returned to him, he (complainant/Hetram) will be implicated in a criminal case. Therefore, the complainant/Hetram lodged written report and on the basis of the same, offence u/s 420 of the IPC has been registered against the applicant.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused LCR as well as judgment of the trial Court and the impugned judgment.

Learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist has contended that the dispute which had arisen between the applicant/revisionist and the complainant/Hetram is purely of a civil nature and the trial Court has committed a manifest error of law in taking cognizance of offence u/s 420 of IPC and convicting the applicant for the same and on appeal, the appellate Court has also committed grave error of law in maintaining the conviction of the applicant because looking to the nature of the dispute, no offence can be said to have been committed by the applicant.

On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State has supported the impugned judgment and has contended that from the reply given by the applicant during his examination u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., it is clear that the applicant has stated that he had purchased 173 bags of Sawarna paddy from the complainant/Hetram and had paid the entire price, whereas no part of the price was paid by the appellant. Hence, from the conduct of the applicant, it is clear that from the very inception, the intention of the applicant was to deceive the complainant/Hetram and as such he has rightly been convicted for offence u/s 420 of the IPC by the trial Court and affirmed by the impugned judgment.

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to quote Section 415 of the IPC which defines the offence of cheating and the same is punishable u/s 420 of I.P.C. Sections 415 and 420 of the IPC are as under :--

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 not 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".

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

From perusal of written report (Ex. P-4), which was submitted at the Police Station by the complainant/Hetram (PW-2) and on the basis of which a formal FIR was registered as well as the statement of complainant/Hetram (PW-2), it is found that the applicant/Subhash Chandra Agrawal has purchased 173 bags of Sawarna Paddy from the Complainant/Hetram for Rs. 50,000/- and had promised to pay the price within a period of 1 1/2 months. The applicant could not pay the price of the paddy purchased by him and on a demand being made by the complainant/Hetram for the same, the applicant had handed over his recently purchased Suzuki Motorcycle to the complainant under an understanding that the Motorcycle is being handed over in lieu of part payment of the price of paddy and the applicant will be paying the remaining price within a reasonable time. The applicant neither paid the balance price of paddy nor got the Suzuki motorcycle transferred in the name of the complainant. On the contrary, the applicant sent a message to the complainant for handing over his motorcycle to him otherwise he will implicate him (complainant/Hetram) in a false case relating to offence u/s 420 of IPC. Only after this, the complainant/Hetram had submitted written report (Ex. P-4) on 10-9-1995 before the Superintendent of Police for initiating suitable proceedings against the present applicant. On the basis of the written report (Ex. P-4), a FIR (Ex. P-7) was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet for offence punishable u/s 420 of the I.P.C. was submitted before the J.M.F.C. On the basis of the said charge-sheet cognizance of the offence was taken and after trial, the applicant was convicted for offence u/s 420 of I.P.C. and sentenced as aforementioned and the same has been confirmed vide impugned judgment by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh.

From the written report (Ex. P-4) on the basis of which formal FIR (Ex. P-7) was registered and the statement of Complainant/Hetram (PW-2) it is clear that the dispute is regarding sale of 173 bags of Sawarna Paddy by complainant to the applicant and the non-payment of its price by the applicant and also not getting the Suzuki motorcycle registered in the name of the complainant which was handed over to him by the applicant in lieu of payment of part price of the Paddy sold. As such by no stretch of imagination the said act can be said to come within the ambit and purview of cheating as defined in Section 415 of the I.P.C. and the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature and no offence much less an offence u/s 420 of the I.P.C. can be said to have been committed by the applicant. The Trial Court (J.M.F.C.) has committed illegality and impropriety in taking cognizance of offence u/s 420 of I.P.C. and convicting the applicant for the said offence and the First Additional Sessions Judge has also committed grave error of law in maintaining the said conviction vide impugned judgment dated 1-1-2000. The same is liable to be set-aside and is hereby set-aside. In the result, the revision is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 1-1-2000 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh and judgment dated 8-5-1998 passed by J.M.F.C., Raigarh are set-aside and the applicant is set at liberty. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the applicant.