SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
Bhikalal Ramjibhai Zaveri, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent. 477
Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1973, D/- 27-4-1979.
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 420 read with 34 – Offence of Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of Property - Act done by several persons - Charged - Appellant has been convicted under Section 420 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment - Have gone through judgment of the High Court and find that High Court has also based conviction of appellant merely on surmises and conjectures - There is no evidence at all to show that appellant practised any fraud on complainant and thereby induced him to part with cloth nor there is any evidence that appellant knew that complainant was not paid money – Held, appellant No. 1 was a partner of accused 2 and they had hired a room where pieces of cloth were stored - That by itself, however, is not sufficient to show that appellant had any knowledge of inducement practised by Accused 2 - Evidence does not exclude possibility that even though accused 2 may have induced complainant to deliver cloth but did not inform accused 1 regarding exact state of affairs - In circumstances, Court allow appeal, set aside conviction, sentence of appellant and acquit of charges framed against him - Appeal allowed.
Judgment
S. M. FAZAL ALI, J.:- The appellant has been convicted under Section 420 read with Section 34, I. P. C. and sentenced to 18 months rigorous imprisonment. We have gone through the judgment of the High Court and we find that the High Court has also based the conviction of the appellant merely on surmises and conjectures. There is no evidence at all to show that the appellant practised any fraud on the complainant and thereby induced him to part with the cloth nor there is any evidence that the appellant knew that the complainant was not paid the money. The only circumstance that has been relied upon by the prosecution against the appellant is that the appellant No. 1 was a partner of accused 2 and they had hired a room where the pieces of cloth were stored. That by itself, however, is not sufficient to show that the appellant had any knowledge of the inducement practised by Accused 2. The evidence does not exclude the possibility that even though accused 2 may have induced the complainant to deliver the cloth but did not inform accused 1 regarding the exact state of affairs. In the circumstances, we, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the conviction, sentence of the appellant and acquit of the charges framed against him. The appellant will now be discharged.
Appeal allowed.
For Citation : AIR 1981 SC 476
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.