Skip to content


Alec Aran Cohen Vs. Sasi Bhusan Das Gupta and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in40Ind.Cas.728
AppellantAlec Aran Cohen
RespondentSasi Bhusan Das Gupta and anr.
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1800), sections 406, 206 - disposing of car in contravention of hire-purchase agreement--offence--merger of agreement in decree. - .....he obtained a decree directing payment by the defendant in that suit of the sum of rs. 2,310 and also costs. no lien on the oar was declared; and it would seem that the prayer for the issue of an injunction and the appointment of receiver was refused. before the presidency magistrate the complainant brought his suit on the footing that the oar was still his property, and that in disposing of the car in contravention of the terms of the original contract the accused person had acted dishonestly. but it appears to us that the original contract has been merged in the decree, and it is, therefore, rather difficult to say at the present stage that the oar still remains the property of the complainant.2. we are, therefore, unable to make this rule absolute. but we leave it open to the.....
Judgment:

1. This Rule is directed against an order of the Fourth Presidency Magistrate by which he discharged the accused person under the provisions of Section 253, Criminal Procedure Code. The complainant in the case was one A.A. Cohen, and it appears that on what may be described as a hire-purchase agreement the accused opposite party has obtained from him a motor car. A sum of Rs. 2,310 remained due upon the car, and in that state of things the complainant brought a suit on the Original Side of this Court, praying inter alia for the appointment of a Receiver and the issue of an injunction. He obtained a decree directing payment by the defendant in that suit of the sum of Rs. 2,310 and also costs. No lien on the oar was declared; and it would seem that the prayer for the issue of an injunction and the appointment of Receiver was refused. Before the Presidency Magistrate the complainant brought his suit on the footing that the oar was still his property, and that in disposing of the car in contravention of the terms of the original contract the accused person had acted dishonestly. But it appears to us that the original contract has been merged in the decree, and it is, therefore, rather difficult to say at the present stage that the oar still remains the property of the complainant.

2. We are, therefore, unable to make this Rule absolute. But we leave it open to the complainant to apply for sanction to the Court which made the decree to the taking of proceedings in view of the provisions of Section 206, Indian Penal Code, or to take such other steps as he may be advised. In these terms this Rule is discharged.


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