Back
2020 Supreme(Tri) 69
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
S. Talapatra, J.
Uttam Deb - Appellants
Vs.
Respondent: The State of Tripura
Crl. Rev. P. No. 23 of 2016
Decided On : 27-07-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : S.B. Deb and S. Sarkar, Advs.
For the Respondent: S. Debnath, Addl. P.P.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction for the offense of 'cheating' under Section 420 of the IPC.
Headnote:
Cheating - Non-banking financial company - Section 420 of the IPC - [IPC] - [Section 420] - The court discussed the elements of cheating and the requirement of dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction. It highlighted the lack of evidence for inducement and the absence of mens rea, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted under Section 420 of the IPC for taking money from the complainant for investment in a non-banking financial company but failing to deposit the same. The prosecution adduced evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, and the trial judge found the petitioner guilty based on their testimonies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no legal evidence to establish dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction or inducement for making the payment. It noted discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses and concluded that the prosecution failed to prove 'cheating' beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues were whether there was evidence of inducement and dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction, and whether the prosecution had proved 'cheating' under Section 420 of the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction for the offense of 'cheating' under Section 420 of the IPC. It highlighted the lack of evidence for inducement and mens rea, leading to the acquittal of the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 420 of the IPC on the benefit of doubt. The judgment and order of conviction were quashed, and the petitioner was allowed. The sureties of the petitioner were discharged from their obligations.
JUDGMENT :
S. Talapatra, J.
1. The petitioner being the convict has challenged the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.01.2015 delivered in case No. PRC 616 of 2011 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Udaipur, Gomati Tripura by means of this revision petition, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. inasmuch as the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence have been upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur by his judgment and order dated 16.03.2016 in Criminal Appeal 05(1)/2015.
2. The prosecution against the petitioner had been initiated on the basis of a complaint [Exbt. 1] filed by one Rangalal Sutradhar stating that he had given Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner on 17.09.2010 being induced that the said money would be invested in UNIPAY 2 U, a non-banking financial company in presence of witnesses. Again, the said complainant gave a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner in order to deposit in UNIPAY 2 U, the said non-banking financial company, in the name of his wife, Smt. Beauty Sutradhar. The said money was paid to the petitioner according to the complainant in presence of the witnesses. Again on 30.12.2020, the complainant gave another sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner to deposit the same in the name of his wife in presence of the witnesses. Lastly, on 13.02.2011, the complainant gave another sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the petitioner to deposit the same in UNIPAY 2 U, the said non-financial banking company to be deposited in the name of his daughter namely Padma Sutradhar. In the same manner, the complainant had made investment of Rs. 1,20,000/- through the petitioner to UNIPAY 2 U, the said non-banking financial company. Later on, the complainant came to know 'from the office of the UNIPAY 2 U', the said non-banking financial company that the petitioner did not invest the said amount, even though he had received the amount from the complainant. Being defrauded thus, the said complaint was filed by Rangalal Sutradhar.
3. Based on the said complaint, made to the Officer-in-Charge, Kakraban P.S. Case No. 157/2011 under Section 420 of the IPC was registered on 21.09.2011. On completion of the investigation the final police report was filed sending up the petitioner to face the trial under Section 420 of the IPC. When the charge was framed for committing offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC on taking cognizance, the petitioner had denied the charge and claimed to be tried in accordance with law. It would be apparent from the records that the prosecution adduced as many as 9 (nine) witnesses and some documentary evidence [Exbt. 1-Exbt. 3]. On recording the prosecution, evidence the petitioner was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., when the petitioner reiterated his plea of innocence. No evidence has been led by the petitioner in his defence. Thus, on appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution by the judgment dated 03.01.2015 the petitioner has been convicted under Section 420 of the IPC having observed as under:
"In this case, on consideration of the prosecution evidences as a whole one thing is clear that the accused with dishonest intention taken money from the complainant on various dates for depositing the same but failed to deposit the same and committed cheating. In this case, it is also proved by all the prosecution witnesses by giving cogent and corroborative evidence that the accused was known as agent of UNIPAY 2 U, Non Banking Financial Company and the accused has taken money from various persons for depositing the same in the said company but did not deposit the same in the company and, therefore, it is very natural and believable that the accused also taken money from the complainant for the said purpose and failed to deposit the same. Besides this, in the present society, it is common knowledge that many agents are running the business of collecting money from the various people for opening policy and in su
