Back
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Bulbul Kalita @ Khitis Kalita, Son Of Ruhit Kalita – Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Arun Dev Choudhury, J.)
1. Heard Mr. M.A Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. PP, Assam.
2. The present revision petition is filed under section 401 read with section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 assailing the judgment and order dated 14.05.2009, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Margherita in GR Case No.126/2008, convicting the accused petitioner under section 420 IPC and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to serve simple imprisonment for one month.
3. The further challenge is to the judgment and order dated 16.03.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.2, Tinsukia in Criminal Appeal No.17(2)/2009, whereby the said criminal appeal was dismissed by affirming the judgment and sentence passed by the learned trial court.
4. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the findings of both the courts below are vitiated by perversity, inasmuch as no material has been produced by the prosecution to establish any ingredients of section 420 IPC. Mr. Sheikh, further contends that from the prosecution
For a conviction under section 420 IPC, clear evidence of deception and dishonest intention is required, which was not established in this case.
A mere breach of contract does not constitute an offence of cheating under IPC; deception and fraudulent intention must be proven.
Conviction under IPC sections 420 and 120-B set aside due to lack of evidence for dishonest intention or conspiracy.
The court upheld the conviction for cheating under Section 420 IPC, affirming the lower courts' findings and modifying the sentence to six months due to mitigating circumstances.
The court found that a civil dispute may constitute a criminal offence under S.420 IPC if fraudulent intent is present, and the mere existence of a civil remedy does not warrant quashing criminal pro....
The prosecution must prove fraudulent or dishonest inducement, intention to deceive (mens rea), and the case beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt in cases of cheating under Section 415 IPC and Section....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
