Back
2016 Supreme(HP) 502
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
P.S. Rana, J.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Appellant
Versus
Baba Suraj Nath - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 181 of 2006
Decided On : 03-05-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. M.L. Chauhan and Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur Additional Advocates General and Mr. R.K. Sharma Deputy Advocate General.
For the Respondent:Ms. Uma Manta, Advocate.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that for the offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC, there must be a dishonest intention at the time of making a promise, and the lack of evidence to prove such intention led to the dismissal of the appeal and the benefit of doubt being given to the accused.
Headnote:
Cheating - Criminal Case - Section 420 IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 420 IPC - The court analyzed the testimony of witnesses and the evidence presented to determine the accused's intention and found that there was no evidence to prove dishonest intention at the time of making promises. The court referred to legal provisions and case law to establish that for the offense of cheating, there must be a dishonest intention at the time of making a promise. The court concluded that there was no positive, cogent, and reliable evidence to convict the accused under Section 420 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, an employee, alleged that the accused defrauded him by promising to solve his problems and secure a job promotion, and then demanding and receiving money from him. The accused was acquitted by the Trial Court under Section 420 IPC. The State filed an appeal against this judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to prove the accused's dishonest intention at the time of making promises, and therefore, it was not expedient in the ends of justice to convict the accused under Section 420 IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the testimony of witnesses, the accused's intention at the time of making promises, and the lack of evidence to establish dishonest intention for the offense of cheating.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to prove the accused's dishonest intention at the time of making promises, as required for the offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the accused was given the benefit of doubt. The court concluded that the liability of the accused was only civil and that the dispute between the complainant and the accused was purely of a civil nature. The file of the Trial Court was to be sent back forthwith, and the criminal appeal was disposed of.
P.S. Rana, J.
Present appeal is filed against the judgment dated 23.12.2005 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.V Shimla in criminal case No. 100/2 of 2003/2002 title State of H.P. vs. Baba Suraj Nath.
Brief facts of the case
2. Complainant Surinder Kumar who was employed as Junior Assistant in the department of Tourism had deposited his salary in PNB The Mall Shimla. It is alleged by prosecution that complainant is unmarried and complainant met accused Baba Suraj Nath and disclosed the accused that complainant was suffering from mental tension etc. upon which accused assured the complainant to solve all his problems in life and also assured that he would be promoted in job. It is alleged by prosecution that accused demanded money from complainant and complainant had given three cheques to accused i.e. cheque No. 444247 dated 6.11.2001 amouting to Rs. 21000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand only), cheque No. 444248 dated 6.11.2001 amouting to Rs.21000/- (Rupees twenty one thousand only) and cheque No. 444250 dated 12.11.2001 amouting to Rs.50000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). It is alleged by prosecution that accused defrauded the complainant to the tune of Rs. 92000/- (Rupees ninety two thousand only) in view of mental condition of complainant. It is alleged by prosecution that FIR was registered and investigation was completed and investigation report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the competent Court of law.
3. Charge was framed against the accused on 8.7.2003 by learned Trial Court under Section 420 IPC. Accused did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution examined nine witnesses in all and also tendered documentary evidence.
5. Learned Trial Court acquitted the accused under Section 420 IPC. Feeling aggrieved against the judgment passed by learned Trial Court State of H.P. filed present appeal.
6. Court heard learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused and also perused the entire record carefully.
7. Following points arise for determination in present appeal:-
Point No.1
Whether judgment of learned Trial Court is perverse and based upon non-appreciation of evidence properly as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?
Point No.2
Final Order.
8. Findings upon Point No.1 with reasons
8.1. PW1 Surinder Kumar has stated that he is posted as Junior Assistant in Tourism department and his salary is deposited in PNB The Mall Shimla. He has stated that his salary is Rs. 7000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) per month. He has stated that in the month of October 2001 accused came in his contact and told him that accused would get promotion of him and would also solve all worries of him. He has stated that on one day he was on leave but by mistake his attendance was recorded in attendance register. He has stated that he was suspended. He has stated that he has issued three cheques in favour of accused amounting to Rs.92000/- (Rupees ninety two thousand only). He has further stated that accused has committed cheating with him. He has stated that thereafter he filed criminal complaint Ext.PW1/A before police department. He has stated that police took into possession cheque book vide seizure memo Ext.PW1/B. He has stated that cheque book is Ext.PAZ. He identified the accused in Court. He has denied suggestion that he used to get perform religious activities from accused. He has stated that he does not know that accused has performed religious prayer in Shiv temple for the complainant. He has denied suggestion that Rs. 92000/- (Rupees ninety two thousand only) spent upon expenditure involved in religious activities. He has denied suggestion that accused did not commit cheating with him. He has denied suggestion that accused did not assure the complainant that complainant would get promotion in service. He has denied suggestion that he was not suspended in service. He has stated that he could not produce any suspension order. H
