Skip to content


Ram Chandra De and anr. Vs. Gajendra Nath Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in94Ind.Cas.204
AppellantRam Chandra De and anr.
RespondentGajendra Nath Das
Excerpt:
penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 420 - sale of property--consideration money, balance of, not paid--offence. - .....on the accused no. 1 for payment of the said sum, the accused no. 1 at first put off payment from time to time on various pretexts and ultimately denied that he had to pay any sum whatsoever to the complainant. the case against the accused no. 2 is that he abetted accused no. 1 in denying his liability.2. now the two accused before us' have been convicted under sections 420/31, indian penal code. we have examined the record for ourselves and are of opinion that the dispute, such as it was, was of a civil nature, and that it is impossible to say from the evidence on record and having regard to the recitals in the kobala that the ingredients required in section 420, indian penal code, have been satisfied in this case. in this view of the matter we set aside the conviction and sentence and.....
Judgment:

1. The facts giving rise to the prosecution out of which this Rule has arisen, shortly stated, are as follows: The complainant sold two thatched huts to the accused No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 150. The complainant's case is that the said consideration was to be paid in the following manner, i.e., a sum of Rs. 47 was to be set off on account of a debt which the complainant owed to the accused No. 1 and the balance, namely, a sum of Rs. 103 was, to be paid to the complainant by the accused No. 1 on the execution of the document. It is said that the complainant was in a hurry to leave Calcutta and that it was arranged between the parties that the kobala in respect of the huts should be executed and registered forthwith by the complainant and that the said sum of Rs. 103 being the balance of the consideration should be paid by the accused No. 1 afterwards. The complainant complains that although the kobala was executed and registered in accordance with the said arrangement, the accused No. 1 failed and neglected to pay to him the said sum of Rs. 103 and that when demands were made on the accused No. 1 for payment of the said sum, the accused No. 1 at first put off payment from time to time on various pretexts and ultimately denied that he had to pay any sum whatsoever to the complainant. The case against the accused No. 2 is that he abetted accused No. 1 in denying his liability.

2. Now the two accused before us' have been convicted under Sections 420/31, Indian Penal Code. We have examined the record for ourselves and are of opinion that the dispute, such as it was, was of a civil nature, and that it is impossible to say from the evidence on record and having regard to the recitals in the kobala that the ingredients required in Section 420, Indian Penal Code, have been satisfied in this case. In this view of the matter we set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the petitioners be discharged from their bail bonds. The complainant, if so advised, may seek his remedy in a Civil Court.


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