Back
MEENAKSHI MADAN RAI
Sancha Bahadur Subba – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Sharma – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi Madan Rai, J. - Aggrieved by the acquittal of the Respondent No.1 herein, in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2018, Ramesh Sharma v. State of Sikkim under Section 406 and Section 420 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, the “IPC”), by the Learned Sessions Judge, Special Division-II, Sikkim at Gangtok, vide Judgment dated 27.08.2018, having reversed the finding of Conviction of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, Chungthang, North Sikkim, in G.R. Case No.327 of 2015, State of Sikkim v. Ramesh Sharma vide Judgment dated 28.12.2017, this Appeal has arisen.
2.(i) On 07.01.2015, the Appellant herein lodged Exhibit 16, the First Information Report (for short, the “FIR”), before the Sadar Police Station, which was registered as FIR No.08 of 2015, dated 07.01.2015 under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC against the Respondent No.1. The Appellant reported that the Respondent No.1, in the month of March, 2013, had informed him that Loan could be availed from the Syndicate Finance Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, for the incomplete Hotel Project of his son with marginally lower rate of interest than the Nationalized Banks as also liberal moratorium period. The Respondent No.1 being known to
Insufficient evidence of dishonest intent or misappropriation negates criminal charges under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proving criminal intent in such transactions.
The ingredients of the offenses under Sections 405/406/420 IPC are prima facie present in the case, as there was evidence of entrustment of the jewelry, dishonest intention at the time of the transac....
A breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intent is proven at the outset of the agreement, as established in relevant legal precedents.
Mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating under IPC unless there is evidence of dishonest intention from the outset.
Non-payment in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating unless there is evidence of dishonest intention from the inception.
The court ruled that mere failure to keep a promise cannot constitute cheating; intention to deceive must exist at the time of the promise.
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
