Back
2017 Supreme(Tri) 138
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Sri Samir Roy, son of late Santosh Kumar Roy - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondents
CRL. REV. P. No.75 of 2014
Decided on : 31-01-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. Lodh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. A. Ghosh, P.P., Mr. B. N. Majumder, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that fraudulent or dishonest intention at the beginning of a transaction is essential to establish the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC.
Headnote:
Section 420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - IPC - [Section 420] - The court discussed the elements of Section 420 of the IPC and found that the accused had induced the complainant to deliver property by executing a sale deed while already having leased the property to a third party. The court affirmed the finding of conviction under Section 420 of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 420 of the IPC for inducing the complainant to deliver property by executing a sale deed while already having leased the property to a third party. The complainant alleged that the petitioner had cheated her by executing the sale deed and not delivering vacant possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC based on the evidence presented by the complainant and her witnesses. The court observed that the petitioner had deceived and cheated the complainant by executing the sale deed while already having leased the property to a third party.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fraudulent inducement by the accused, the delivery of property, and the intentional omission causing harm to the complainant. The court also considered the petitioner's claim of innocence and the evidence presented during the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the elements of Section 420 of the IPC were satisfied as the accused had induced the complainant to deliver property by executing a sale deed while already having leased the property to a third party. The court emphasized that mere breach of contract does not constitute deception or cheating, and fraudulent or dishonest intention at the beginning of the transaction is essential to establish the offence of cheating.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned judgment and acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 420 of the IPC on the benefit of doubt. The petitioner's conviction was overturned, and sureties were discharged from their obligation.
By means of this revision petition the judgment and order dated 28.05.2014 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.25(2)/2013 by the Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, has been challenged by the convict. By the said judgment dated 28.05.2014, the judgment dated 26.04.2013 delivered in CR 1406 convicting the petitioner under Section 420 of the IPC has been affirmed. Thus, the finding of conviction and the order sentencing the petitioner to suffer RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/, in default to suffer RI for further six months have been sustained on reappreciation.
2. The complainant Smt. Gouri Sarkar took a room on rent from the petitioner in the year 2000 situated at Akhaura Road, Agartala and started her business in electronic goods. When the said room fell in the share of the brother of the petitioner in the exercise to partition the joint property, according to the complainant the petitioner approached her in the month of June 2002 for selling the room adjoining the earlier rented room. The proposal as communicated was accepted by the complainant and the consideration was settled as Rs.2,80,000/. An agreement for sale was executed on 19.06.2002 on paying the earnest money of Rs.60,000/in cash. It was further agreed that a sum of Rs.80,000/paid earlier by the complainant to the petitioner in connection with the rent of the room in the year 2000 shall also be the part of the earnest money for the proposed purchase of another shop. Thus, an amount of Rs.1,40,000/was paid and it was further agreed that the balance amount of Rs.1,40,000/would be paid within a year from the date of execution of the agreement to sale. Accordingly, the complainant prepared herself for payment of the balance amount within the stipulated time but according to the complainant the petitioner deferred accepting the balance of the consideration amount on different pleas. However, the petitioner received Rs.10,000/and Rs.5,000/from the complainant on 25.08.2003 and 20.08.2004 respectively within the terms of the agreement dated 19.06.2000. Ultimately, on 02.06.2005, the petitioner executed the sale deed in favour of the complainant. In the sale deed, the sale amount was however was mentioned as Rs.1,15,000/as per the Government rate. On the day of execution of the sale deed, the petitioner assured that he would shortly vacate the premises but on 28.06.2005, the complainant received a notice from the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Agartala in connection with Misc. Case No.55 of 2005 arising out of TS 77 of 2005. From the notice, the complainant could gather that the petitioner entered into an unregistered tenancy agreement with Basana Roy and Pranab Kanti Sarkar on 15.12.2004 for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 01.01.2005 receiving an advance of Rs.50,000/. The complainant has stated that the petitioner has cheated her for the second time when on 02.06.2005 he executed the sale deed in her favour receiving the balance payment of Rs.1,40,000/. In that background, the complainant filed the complaint for taking cognizance under Section 420 of the IPC.
3. On taking cognizance, the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala proceeded to record evidence before framing of the charge and after framing of the charge. As stated, the charge was framed under Section 420 of the IPC against the petitioner, to which he pleaded innocence and claimed to face the trial. From the crossexamination it appeared, as recorded by the appellate court, that in the money receipt relating to the payment, the signature of the petitioner was taken on a blank paper and later on it was given the shape of the money receipt.
4. To substantiate the charge, the complainant adduced as many as three witnesses including herself and adduced five documentary evidence including the Exbt.4 series and Exbt.1 and Exbt.A series [the agreement to sale]. Having recorded the evidence of the prosecution, the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of th
