SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1949 Supreme(Cal) 59

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
G. N. Das, Lahiri
SUDHINDRA NATH DUTT - Appellant
Versus
KING - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 1  Of  1949
Decided On : APRIL 12, 1949

Advocates Appeared:
NALIN CHANDRA BANERJI, PRASUN CHANDRA GHOSH, S.BOSE

Headnote:

Cheating - Criminal Law - Ss. 420, 467 and 471 - Summary of Acts and Sections

Fact of the Case:

Messrs. Harold F. Ritchie and Co. Ltd. received an order for goods from a purported agent of a business in Dacca. The goods were delivered against a pay order, which was later found to be bogus. The police recovered a major portion of the goods from a house, leading to the arrest and trial of the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the evidence of identification and handwriting expert to be unreliable, and raised doubts about the conduct of the investigation. It concluded that the majority verdict of the jury was wrong and acquitted the accused.

Issues: Identity of the accused, reliability of evidence, conduct of the investigation

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence in cases of identification and handwriting analysis, and highlighted the importance of a thorough and unbiased investigation.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences of the appellant, and directed his immediate release.

LAHIRI, J.

( 1 ) MESSRS. Harold F. Ritchie and Co. Ltd. are a reputed business concern carrying on business at 11 Olive Street, Calcutta. Amongst other things they are importers and distributors of Eno's Fruit Salt, Germolene and Brylcream. It is said that on 14-5-1948, they received an order from Messrs. Section N. Siddique and Sons of 2 Waterworks Road Dacca for the supply of 100 cases of Eno's Fruit Salt, 50 cases of Germolene and 50 cases of Brylcream by a letter which has been marked as Ex. 1 in the case. On the same day at about 4. 30 p. m. a man named A. Rahaman representing himself to be an agent of Messrs. S. N. Siddique and Sons of Dacca came to see the Manager of Messrs. Harold F. Ritchie and Co. Ltd. , Mr. Maurice D. Sopher in connection with the order for sale; but as it was late in the afternoon and the office hour was over he was asked by the Manager to come on the following morning which was a Saturday. Next morning Rahaman again came at 9 O'clock but had to wait at the outer office for half an hour as the Manager was otherwise busy. At 9. 30 a. m. Rahaman met Sopher and told him that his master was a big business man of Karachi who had advanced a loan of 25 lacs of rupees without interest to the Pakistan Govt. On these representations Mr. Sopher agreed to sell so much as he could supply provided payment was received in his office. Rahaman told Sopher that he was not allowed to handle cash by his master and accordingly arrangements were made for payment by a pay order issued by the 'hindusthan Commercial Bank'. Sopher agreed to accept the pay order and instructed his Storekeeper, and D. D. Tamboli to draw up a pro forma invoice which was done and signed by Sopher. This document is Ex. 4 and it shows that 900 dozens of Eno's Fruit Salt, 600 dozens of Brylcream and 50 dozens of Germolene Ointment were to be sold for the total price of Rs. 33,187/8/ -. It bears the date 15-5-1948. Rahaman took the pro forma invoice and promised to call on the next working day, i. e. 17-5-1948 with the pay order; on 17-5-1948 Rahaman came in the morning to enquire how many lorries would be-required to carry the goods and promised to call again in the afternoon with the pay order. Rahaman again came in the afternoon with the pay order, Ex. 6, and letter of authority Ex. 5, issued by the Hindusthan Commercial Bank, Bhowanipur. The delivery order Ex. 3 was prepared before the Pro forma Invoice and it was in the possession of the Store-keeper. Rahaman asked for a receipt for the pay order whereupon the Cashier, V. S. Narayan Swami prepared a receipt which was signed by Sopher and made over to Rahaman. Ex. 14 is the Counterfoil of the receipt. The Co. had two godowns one at 11 Clive Street and the other in Park Street. After taking the required quantity of Germolene from the Clive Street godown Rahaman went to the Park Street godown with the Store-keeper Tamboli and five coolies of the Co. in a taxi hired by Rahaman which was waiting outside. At the Park Street godown the Store-keeper delivered the remaining quantity of goods according to the pro forma invoice on taking a receipt from Rahaman on the delivery order. Rahaman's receipt is Ex. 3 (1 ).

( 2 ) ON 18-5-1948 Sopher sent the pay order to his Banker, the National Bank of India, in the usual course of business, for collection and very soon thereafter discovered that he had omitted to charge Sale tax in his pro forma invoice. Upon this discovery Sopher attempted to contact Rahaman without success and became nervous about) the pay order; on enquiry his Banker informed Sopher that the pay order had been sent out for clearing and that he would be informed as soon as any intimation was received. On 19-5-1948, one Swarup Prakash Puri, the Agent of the Hindusthan Commercial Bank at 11 Clive Street, informed Sopher that he had received a message from the Bhowanipur Branch of the Hindusthan Commercial Bank to the effect that the pay order presented by Sopher had never been issued by them.






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top