Skip to content


Dori Lal Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919All217(1); 50Ind.Cas.667
AppellantDori Lal
RespondentEmperor
Cases ReferredEmperor v. Bishan Das
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), sections 415, 420 - dishonest concealment, what amounts to--cheating. - - sukhan then went back to dori lal to complain, but dori lal put him off and eventually drove him away with abuse and would not return the money paid......convicted. it is also contended that in any case the sentence is severe. dori lal is found by the learned sessions judge to have sold certain trees to one sukhan as being his property and to have received rs. 150 as part of the sale price. sukhan went on to out down the trees, was resisted and found that the trees belonged to certain other persons. sukhan then went back to dori lal to complain, but dori lal put him off and eventually drove him away with abuse and would not return the money paid. the contention is that dori lal's acts did not amount to cheating as defined in section 415 of the indian penal code, and in support i am referred to the case of emperor v. bishan das 27 a. 561 : 2 a.l.j. 268 : a.w.n. (1905) 78 2 cr. l.j. 218, in the present case the trees which dori lal sold to.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. Dori Lal has been found guilty of an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and to a fine of Rs. 150. It is contended before me that on the facts found Dori Lal is not guilty of the offence of which he has been convicted. It is also contended that in any case the sentence is severe. Dori Lal is found by the learned Sessions Judge to have sold certain trees to one Sukhan as being his property and to have received Rs. 150 as part of the sale price. Sukhan went on to out down the trees, was resisted and found that the trees belonged to certain other persons. Sukhan then went back to Dori Lal to complain, but Dori Lal put him off and eventually drove him away with abuse and would not return the money paid. The contention is that Dori Lal's acts did not amount to cheating as defined in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, and in support I am referred to the case of Emperor v. Bishan Das 27 A. 561 : 2 A.L.J. 268 : A.W.N. (1905) 78 2 Cr. L.J. 218, In the present case the trees which Dori Lal sold to Sukhan stand on land in respect of which Dori Lal held a mortgage. He brought the land to sale under the mortgage and purchased it before the sale of the trees by him to Sukhan, but in the interim, the mortgagor had given the trees in suit to other persons as compensation for certain trees which the mortgagor had wrongfully out down. The learned Sessions Judge pointed out that Sukhan would not have paid anything for the trees if he had known of these circumstances and the same answer was given me on behalf of Dori Lal by, the learned Vakil who appears for him in this Court, but he contends that Dori Lal was not bound to say anything about the matter, and particularly so as Sukhan never asked him about his ownership or right over the trees in dispute. The learned Judge infers from the conduct of Dori Lal, when Sukhan made the complaint to him, that Dori Lal had been convicted of dishonestly concealing the facts as contained in the Explanation to Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. I agree with the Sessions Judge and dismiss the application. I am not prepared to hold that the Sentence errs on the ground of severity.

2. The applicant must surrender to his bail to serve the remaining term, of his imprisonment.


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