Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAM KRISHNA GAUTAM, J.
Panna Lal Sharma — Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others — Respondent
Application U/S 378 No. 69 of 2002
Decided on : 16-09-2019
Section 420 I.P.C. - Deceit in Property Transaction - Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. - [Section 420 I.P.C.] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the essential ingredients of Section 420 I.P.C., the principle of 'buyer beware' under the Transfer of Property Act, and the legal duty to disclose material facts in property transactions. The court also referred to the interpretation of dishonest concealment of facts and the difference between concealment and false representation. These legal provisions influenced the court's decision in evaluating the evidence of deceit in the property transaction and determining the absence of willful deception by the accused.]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint against the accused for deceit in a property transaction under Section 420 I.P.C. The complainant alleged that the accused, despite being aware of the cancellation of transfer of a plot, executed a sale deed for the same plot in favor of the complainant, leading to the filing of the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove willful deception by the accused as the complainant and witnesses were not certain about whether the accused was aware of the cancellation of the plot's transfer. The court also emphasized the principle of 'buyer beware' and the legal duty to disclose material facts in property transactions.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused committed deceit in the property transaction under Section 420 I.P.C. and whether the judgment of acquittal was justified based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the absence of proof of willful deception by the accused, the application of the principle of 'buyer beware' under the Transfer of Property Act, and the legal duty to disclose material facts in property transactions. The court emphasized the significance of dishonest concealment of facts and the difference between concealment and false representation.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application for leave to file an appeal, concluding that the judgment of acquittal was justified and there were no grounds for granting leave to appeal.
JUDGMENT :
Ram Krishna Gautam, J.
This application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. has been moved by Panna Lal Sharma with a prayer for grant of leave to file appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 02.11.2002, passed by IXth Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 1996 of 2002 (Panna Lal Sharma Vs. Rewati Prasad), under Section 420 I.P.C., Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh, whereby Rewati Prasad has been acquitted from the charge of offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for applicant argued that it was a complaint case filed against Rewati Prasad by Panna Lal Sharma, wherein he was summoned for offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. A sale deed was got executed by Rewati Prasad for plot no. 75 on 17.02.1993. This plot was obtained in a public auction from Sales Tax Department by Rewati Prasad and subsequently this public auction was cancelled by department concerned, of which information was communicated to Rewati Prasad on 28.07.1992. Even after being informed about ownership of plot no. 75, Rewati Prasad executed sale deed for same plot in favour of complainant for a consideration of Rs.8,500/-, which was not under his ownership. It was a deceit with complainant Panna Lal Sharma, hence above complaint was filed, in which summoning was there. This fact was proved by complainant's witness PW-1 and PW-2 by their testimony recorded under Section 444 and 446 Cr.P.C., but trial Court failed to appreciate facts and law placed before it, thereby passed impugned judgment of acquittal, which was result of perversity. Hence, this appeal with a prayer for grant of leave.
3. Learned A.G.A. argued that judgment was in accordance with evidence on record.
4. The admitted fact was that Rewati Prasad was owner in possession of plot no. 75, purchased by public auction from Sales Tax Department in the year 1992. This plot was sold to Panna Lal Sharma on 17.02.1993 by registered sale deed. Panna Lal Sharma being examined as PW-1 admitted that he got possession over above plot and it was got constructed by him. The testimony under Section 244 Cr.P.C. as of Panna Lal Sharma is of this fact that he is not personally aware as to whether communication regarding cancellation of transfer of plot by department concerned was made to Rewati Prasad or not. Rather, it came to his notice after making inquiry at Sales Tax Department in the year 1996.
5. The only question which was basis for judgment of acquittal was that neither Panna Lal Sharma nor his witness nor public witness examined as PW-3 was in position to prove that this communication of cancellation of transfer of plot in public auction was made to Rewati Prasad or not and on the basis of this fact this judgment of acquittal was passed. Moreso, admittedly Rewati Prasad was owner in possession of plot in question. He had made construction over it. He executed deed of transfer by registered sale deed. The transferee complainant got possession over it. He occupied the same and raised construction. It was never protested by anyone. Subsequently, upon inquiry it came to notice that in public office above deed of public auction was cancelled by department concerned. He was not aware about communication of this cancellation order to Rewati Prasad, then under how and under what circumstances, this inference can be drawn that it was under willful deceit by Rewati Prasad. The public witness could also not explain as to whether communication was made to Rewati Prasad or not.
6. For an offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C., the essential ingredients is that "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to
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
