Skip to content


Lal Bahadur Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1933All42; 140Ind.Cas.97
AppellantLal Bahadur
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- .....109, penal code, also being relied upon. his case that he negotiated a purchase from abdul latif, basu bibi, etc., of a plot of land. sulaiman, the accused, carrying on the negotiations as representing basu bibi and abdul latif -- sulaiman being a son-in-law of basu bibi. lal bahadur set out to prove that he was deceived by sulaiman into believing that there was only one incumbrance on the property to the amount of rs. 205 or a little more whereas in fact subsequent to the sale being completed he had discovered that there was another incumbrance of rs. 1000 of which sulaiman most assuredly knew because he executed the mortgage himself as attorney. these facts if established very strongly suggest an offence committed by sulaiman of cheating. the exact section applicable is immaterial for.....
Judgment:

Boys, J.

1. The applicant Lal Bahadur brought a case against Sulaiman and others under Sections 418 and 420, and Section 109, Penal Code, also being relied upon. His case that he negotiated a purchase from Abdul Latif, Basu Bibi, etc., of a plot of land. Sulaiman, the accused, carrying on the negotiations as representing Basu Bibi and Abdul Latif -- Sulaiman being a son-in-law of Basu Bibi. Lal Bahadur set out to prove that he was deceived by Sulaiman into believing that there was only one incumbrance on the property to the amount of Rs. 205 or a little more whereas in fact subsequent to the sale being completed he had discovered that there was another incumbrance of Rs. 1000 of which Sulaiman most assuredly knew because he executed the mortgage himself as attorney. These facts if established very strongly suggest an offence committed by Sulaiman of cheating. The exact section applicable is immaterial for the present purpose. The Magistrate has thrown the case out being almost entirely influenced by the consideration that Lal Bahadur is empowered by a covenant in the sale deed to recover any further moneys for which the land might be liable, presumably by a civil suit. This is a wholly inadequate ground for throwing out a complaint where there is or is likely to be evidence of an offence. If the facts which I have set out above are established by Lal Bahadur, the Magistrate must consider whether they constitute a criminal offence entirely regardless of the fact that there may be a civil remedy. He is in error if he supposes that the existance of a civil remedy should necessarily exclude trial by a Criminal Court of an offence. No other ground is suggested in the present proceedings for the discharge.

2. An application in revision was filed before the Sessions Judge who transferred it, as I am told to the Sessions and Subordinate Judge, and it is suggested that there was no, such power of transfer. But in view of the order that I am passing it is unnecessary to enter into this point. I set aside the order of the Sessions and Subordinate Judge and the order of discharge, and in view pf the fact that I see no reason whatever to suppose that the trial Magistrate was in any way prejudiced against the complainant and that he was merely guided by a consideration of law, I direct that he do take up the case against Sulaiman again from the stage at which it has reached immediately prior to his order or discharge, and give the complainant full further opportunity of establishing his case. The order of discharge of the other accused in the case will stand as no application has been made against them in this Court and notice has therefore gone only to Sulaiman.


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