Skip to content


Murarji Raghunath Gujarati Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919NULL160; 52Ind.Cas.604
AppellantMurarji Raghunath Gujarati
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 420 - cheating--goods paid for in currency notes--shopkeeper, refusal of, to give face value of notes--offence--guilty, plea of --admission of facts alleged, effect of. - - 1. this is a case which is both interesting and important. but we know either that the customer complained to a police officer or that the police officer saw what had happened and intervened, for the two notes paid to the shopkeeper were attached, a panchanama was made and the shopkeeper was sent before a magistrate who, after taking evidence, framed a charge of cheating. i feel perfectly certain in my own mind that the accused never intended by his plea of guilty to admit more than that the fasts alleged against him were true. so far then, there was clearly no deceit. but, in..........alleged against him were true. whether on those facts he ought to be held to have committed the offence of cheating is really a question of law, as to which the plea of the accused must be considered immaterial. magistrates sometimes make mistakes of this kind. they think that because an accused person admits the facts, therefore, he admits that he has committed the offence with which he is charged. this is one of those cases in which the admission of the facts does not amount to an admission of the offence.' therefore, i shall proceed to deal with the case as if there were no plea of guilty.3. for cheating there must be deceit. in this case, obviously, there was no deceit at all in the earlier part of the transaction. there was a sale of goods after the usual inquiry as to price and.....
Judgment:

Heaton, J.

1. This is a case which is both interesting and important. A customer purchased from a shopkeeper goods the price of which was Rs. 2-13 0 and he tendered in payment two currency notes, one of Rs. 2-8 0 the other of rupee one. The shopkeeper accepted the notes and the change which apparently he ought to have given was annas 11 but he tendered as change only 9 anna and 3 pies, saying that the notes were not worth their face value and that 1 anna and 9 pies was charged by the shopkeeper on that account. At least that is what in substance happened, though of course we cannot be sure from the evidence, what were the exact words used. What happened exactly next we do not know from the evidence. But we know either that the customer complained to a Police Officer or that the Police Officer saw what had happened and intervened, for the two notes paid to the shopkeeper were attached, a Panchanama was made and the shopkeeper was sent before a Magistrate who, after taking evidence, framed a charge of cheating. The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. He was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25 and he has applied to this Court in revision.

2. First, I will deal with the plea of guilty. I feel perfectly certain in my own mind that the accused never intended by his plea of guilty to admit more than that the fasts alleged against him were true. Whether on those facts he ought to be held to have committed the offence of cheating is really a question of law, as to which the plea of the accused must be considered immaterial. Magistrates sometimes make mistakes of this kind. They think that because an accused person admits the facts, therefore, he admits that he has committed the offence with which he is charged. This is one of those cases in which the admission of the facts does not amount to an admission of the offence.' Therefore, I shall proceed to deal with the case as if there were no plea of guilty.

3. FOR Cheating there must be deceit. In this case, obviously, there was no deceit at all in the earlier part of the transaction. There was a sale of goods after the usual inquiry as to price and there was a tender of the price by the purchaser. So far then, there was clearly no deceit. But it is said that the shopkeeper deceived when ha stated that the notes were not worth their face value. Whether be said this before or after he had taken the notes into his hands does not appear. But, in substance, it is to my mind perfectly clear that there was no deceit at all. The customer was not induced to hand over the notes by any representation on the part of the shopkeeper that he would get change calculated on the face value of the notes. He handed the notes to the shopkeeper in the ordinary course of the sale and purchase transaction and what really happened was, that a dispute then arose as to the correct amount of change due to the customer. He claimed 11 annas calculated one the face value of the notes. The shopkeeper said be would give only 9 annas and 3 pie?, because the notes were not worth their face value. It is, as I judge it, simply a case of a dispute between the shopkeeper and the customer, and in no way whatever a case of deceit, and certainly not a case of cheating. That is the only matter that we have to consider. The case may illustrate the fact that there are economic and financial difficulties about these notes. With that we have nothing to do, We have merely to decide whether the present applicant is guilty of the offence of cheating, and, in my opinion, it is not a matter even of the slightest doubt--[ hold that it is perfectly clear-that he never committed the offence of cheating in this matter at all.

4. I think our order should be that the conviction is set aside and that the fine if paid, should be refunded.

SHAH, J.

5. I entirely agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //