IMPORTANT POINT
In an offence of cheating false pretence may not be made in express words by accused and it may be inferred from all circumstances including conduct of accused in obtaining the property.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 420-Cheating-Appellant accused purchased 7000 Master plus shares delivered post dated cheque for Rs. 1,69,000/-Issued by co-accused his wife-Cheque was not honoured as its payment was got stopped-Defence plea that shares infact were not delivered which were to be delivered and that cheque was blank, filled up by complainant about its amount and name of payee-High Court setting aside acquittal convicted appellant but upheld acquittal of wife of appellant-Appeal-False pretence need not be in express words by accused-It may be inferred from circumstances including conduct of accused-Appellant had executed a receipt stating that shares had been transferred-Mere fact that cheque was filled in by complainant was not sufficient to take away effect of statement in receipt-Absence of even suggestion to complainant that shares had not been delivered could not be made up by a statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C.-Conviction of appellant was not liable to be interfered with-Sentence however reduced from one year to three months. (Paras 8 to 14)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-These two appeals are inter-linked being directed against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby Devender Kumar Singla, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1036 of 1997 was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ), while Mala Singla, the respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 1050 of 1997 was acquitted. Dr. Baldev Krishan Singla, the respondent in the first appeal and the appellant in the second appeal was the complainant on the basis of whose complaint case was registered and the trial was held.

2. Complainant s case in a nutshell is as under:

On 7th August, 1992 the accused Devender Kumar Singla in the company of his wife the other accused Mala Singla, purchased 7000 Master plus shares for Rs. 1,69,000/- from the complainant Baldev Krishan in the presence of Teja Singh, son Sajjan Singh. The complainant wanted that the payment thereof be made in cash, but accused Devender assured him that as he was a reputed dealer in the sale and purchase of shares, and his business ran into lacs, the payment by cheque would be more in order. The complainant acting on his representation accepted a post dated cheque No. 447131 for a sum of Rs. 1,69,000/- drawn on New Bank of India, Moga, and issued by accused Mala Singla, and was payable on 8th August, 1992. The complainant also delivered 7000 shares and in token of having received the same, Devender executed a receipt Ex. PW 3/B. When the cheque was presented for encashment on 8th August, 1992, it was dishonoured on the ground that the payment had been stopped by the drawer and this fact was conveyed to the complainant vide memo Exh. PW 3/C dated 8th August, 1992. As the subsequent efforts to recover the money from the accused proved futile, the complainant filed the complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga. After recording the preliminary evidence, both the accused were summoned to face trial for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 109 IPC. On a consideration of the pre-charge evidence of the complainant. Baldev Krishan (PW-3) as also that of Ram Adhar (PW-1) an employee of the Union Bank of India, Moga, Tarsem Lal (PW-2) and employee of the New Bank of India, Moga, Teja Singh (PW-4) and Naresh Kumar (PW-5) a clerk of Punjab National Bank, Moga, a prima facie punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC was found to have been made out against both the accused and they were charged accordingly to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. The Trial Court held that the complainant has not been able to establish several relevant factors. It was held that the transaction took place on 27th July, 1992 as claimed by the accused, and not on 7th August, 1992 as alleged by the complainant. There was no material to show that any shares were delivered to the accused. There was no record as regards the identity of the owner of the shares or as to whether they had in fact been transferred to the names of the accused. The existence of the alleged 7000 Master Plus shares was doubted. It was held that if the complainant was having 7000 Master Plus shares, he could have proved this fact by summoning the relevant records, but such records were not produced. Each share certificate has a distinction mark, and if the complainant had purchased the shares he should have been aware of the person from whom he had purchased them and there was no material to show that the accused had transferred any Master Plus shares in their names. With these observations the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moga directed acquittal of the accused persons.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By the impugned judgment the High Court accepted the appeal so far as accused Devender Kumar Singla is concerned, but dismissed the same so far as Mala is concerned. It took note of the fact

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 215

IMPORTANT POINTIn an offence of cheating false pretence may not be made in express words by accused and it may be inferred from all circumstances including conduct of accused in obtaining the property.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
In an offence of cheating false pretence may not be made in express words by accused and it may be inferred from all circumstances including conduct of accused in obtaining the property.