1. Loan default — Pledged goods shortage — Criminal complaint for cheating — Settlement via security documents — Suit for cancellation alleging stifling of prosecution under Section 23, Indian Contract Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 137
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO AND K.C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.
Ouseph Poulo (since deceased) and after him his legal representatives, and another, Appellants
Versus
The Catholic Union Bank Ltd. Head Office, Mala Angadi Vadama Village, Mukundapuram Taluk and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 51 and 52 of 1962.
Advocates appeared
Dr. V. A. Seyid Muhammad, Advocate, for Appellants; Mr. S. T. Desai, Senior Advocate, (Mr. A. G. Pudissery, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 1.
Advocates:
S.T.DESAI, V.A.SEYID MUHAMMAD
S.T.DESAI, V.A.SEYID MUHAMMAD
Agreements to stifle non-compoundable criminal prosecutions are opposed to public policy and unenforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. The party challenging the agreement must prove that the consideration, not just the motive, was the promise to discontinue the prosecution.
Headnote:(A) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Section 23 - Agreements to stifle criminal prosecution - Public policy - Agreements made for the purpose of stifling prosecution are opposed to public policy and unenforceable, except in the case of compoundable offences (Para 6).
(B) Consideration vs. Motive - A distinction must be made between the motive operating in the mind of the parties and the consideration for the agreement; an agreement is invalid only if it is supported by the prohibited consideration of stifling prosecution (Para 7).
(C) Burden of Proof - The party challenging the validity of a transaction must prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that the agreement was based on a promise to discontinue criminal proceedings in exchange for consideration (Paras 7 and 17).
Facts of the case:
Debtors borrowed large sums and pledged goods as security. Upon discovery of a shortage in the pledged goods, a criminal complaint for fraud and cheating was filed. Subsequently, the debtors and their family executed hypothecation bonds and other security documents and surrendered assets to satisfy the debt. Following this, the complainant withdrew the criminal proceedings. A suit was later filed seeking cancellation of these documents on the ground that they were executed to stifle the criminal prosecution.
Findings of Court:
The criminal complaint was found to be bona fide as the security was indeed inadequate. The failure of the primary debtors to testify and their subsequent conduct, including applying for further advances, indicated that the transactions were for the settlement of legitimate debts rather than for the purpose of stifling prosecution.
Issues: Whether the security documents executed by the parties were unenforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act as being opposed to public policy for stifling criminal prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: A mere sequence of events where documents are executed and a complaint is subsequently withdrawn is insufficient to infer prohibited consideration. The party alleging the illegality must prove that the promise was made specifically in exchange for the promise not to prosecute.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether security documents executed following a criminal complaint are unenforceable as being opposed to public policy for stifling prosecution under Section 23, Indian Contract Act. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 )
3. The complaint was bona fide; the debtors' failure to testify and subsequent conduct indicated the documents were not executed as consideration for stifling criminal prosecution. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Agreements to stifle non-compoundable criminal prosecutions are opposed to public policy; however, reparation is permissible provided it is not the consideration for dropping the prosecution. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Appeals dismissed; High Court's judgment upholding the validity of the documents is affirmed. (Para 18 )
6. What is the legal status of agreements made to stifle criminal prosecutions?
Agreements to stifle non-compoundable criminal prosecutions are opposed to public policy and unenforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, as they allow private parties to interfere with the administration of criminal law. (Para 6 )
7. How does the court distinguish between motive and consideration in agreements to stifle prosecution?
An agreement is invalid only if it is supported by prohibited consideration—specifically, a promise not to prosecute in exchange for a benefit. Mere motive or the sequence of events is insufficient to prove prohibited consideration. (Para 7 , 17 )
8. Is reparation by an offender considered stifling of prosecution?
Reparation is the duty of the offender and is encouraged. It does not stifle prosecution unless the reparation is specifically made as the consideration for a promise to discontinue criminal proceedings. (Para 7 )
9. Who bears the burden of proof when a contract is challenged as being opposed to public policy?
The party challenging the validity of the transaction must prove by clear and satisfactory evidence that the agreement was based on prohibited consideration, such as an agreement to stifle prosecution. (Para 7 , 17 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I.:
These two appeals arise from two suits Nos. 5 of 1947 and 32 of 1951; and the main point which they raise for our decision is whether the two documents executed by the appellants and two of the respondents are unenforceable as being opposed to public policy under S. 23 of the Indian Contract Act (hereinafter called the Act ). The trial Court has answered this question in the affirmative, while the High Court of Kerala has taken a contrary view.
2. Poulo Varghese and Poulo Thommi who are the sons of Ouseph Poulo were carrying on trade in hill produce at Alwaye and in the course of their business, they had borrowed from the branch of the Catholic Union Bank Ltd., at Alwaye large amounts. In that connection, they had pledged goods with the Bank as security for the loan and the same had been deposited in a godown, the key of which remained with the Bank. It appears that on the 10th February, 1947, the Officers of the Head Office of the Bank inspected the godown and it was discovered that there was considerable shortage of the goods pledged. Thereupon, the Secretary of the Bank lodged a complaint with the Police that Ouseph Paulo and his two sons who had dealings with the Bank as well as Paulo Joseph, another son of Ouseph Paulo, had colluded with the local Agent of the Bank and had fraudulently removed a substantial part of the pledged articles from the godown. The complaint also alleged alternatively that if the goods had not been fraudulently removed, then the security offered by Paulo Varghese and Paulo Thommi was grossly inadequate to cover the large amounts advanced to them, and that was the result of cheating. The police registered this case and investigations began. At that time the parties settled their differences and the two documents in question were executed.
3. The criminal complaint was filed on the 13th February and the First Information Report was made on the 16th February, 147. On the 22nd February, a hypothecation bond (Ext. 26) was executed by Ouseph Paulo, his wife, his three sons and the will of another son in favour of the Bank for Rs. 30,000/-. This bond covered immovable properties belonging to the executants. On the 27th February, 1947, another document was executed by the same parties in favour of the Bank for Rs. 35,000/-, this document was called Kollappirivu Karar (Ext. B). On the same day a receipt was executed by Paulo Varghese and Poulo Thommi which showed that the goods in the godown were valued at Rs. 10,000/ - and were surrendered to the Bank in partial satisfaction of the debts due from them to the Bank. This was followed by a hire-purchase agreement by which the car owned by Poulo Thommi was transferred to the Bank and the same was conveyed back to him on a hire-purchase agreement; the value of this car was taken to be Rs. 5,000/-. The total amount due from Poulo Varghese and Poulo Thommi to the Bank was Rs. 80,024-5-9. As a result of the transactions in which the parties entered, Rs. 10,000/- were made good by surrendering to the Bank the goods in the godown; Rs. 5,000/- by transferring the car; Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 35,000/- by the hypothecation deed and the Karar respectively; that left a balance of Rs. 24-5-9 which was paid in cash. After this transaction had thus been concluded, on the 28th February the Secretary of the Bank made a statement before the police that the Bank s claim had been settled and that he and the Managing Director of the Bank was satisfied that no goods had been removed from the godown as alleged in the complaint and that in collusion with the Agent of the Bank, the debtors Poulo Varghese and Poulo Thommi had cheated the Bank by over-valuing the goods pledged, but that no further action was necessary to be taken in that behalf. In consequence, the criminal proceedings were dropped. That, in substance, is the nature of the transactions, the character of which falls to be determined in the present appeals.
4. On the 15th December, 1947, Ouseph
