1954 Supreme(Cal) 61
K.C.DAS GUPTA, DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
KARTICK CHANDRA MUKHERJEE – Appellant
Versus
B. N. BANERJI – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
AJIT KUMAR DUTT, CHANDRA NARAYAN LAIK, S.S.MUKHERJEE, SANKAR BANNERJI
( 1 ) THE question raised in this case is whether by receiving payment of certain amount of money as compensation for some lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, though under the terms as agreed upon between the petitioner who had executed a deed of mortgage in respect of these lands to the complainant, the whole of the compensation money was to be applied in the first place "in and towards reduction and satisfaction of the loans", the petitioner can be said to have dishonestly misappropriated this sum. On a complaint on behalf of the Metropolitan Bank that the petitioner had committed an offence under Section 403, Penal Code, by receiving such money and omission to pay it to the Bank, The Magistrate issued a summons against the petitioner under Section 403, Penal Code. The accused appeared in Court and thereafter obtained this Rule which was issued on the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta and opposite party to show cause why the proceedings should not be quashed.
( 2 ) QUITE clearly, if there is a binding agreement under which the compensation money has to be applied towards reduction and satisfaction of the amount of the loan and the petitioner having received the sa
Click Here to Read the rest of this document