Back
ARINDAM LODH
Tanay Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's conviction overview. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties' arguments and assertions. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis of evidence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 18 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 4. definition and elements of offences. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. final judgment and acquittal. (Para 44 , 45 , 50 , 51) |
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal filed by the convict-appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.11.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in connection with Case No. Special 05 (TPID) of 2015 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 4(four) years and also to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- only with default stipulation for commission of offence under Section 3 of the Tripura Protection of Interest of Depositors (Financial Establishment) Act, 2000, [here-in-after referred to as 'TPID Act, 2000'] and further sentenced to suffer R.I for 1(one) year for commission of offence under Section 406 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .
2. Brief Facts:
2.1. R.K. Pur PS Case No. 487/2011, dated 14.11.2011 was registered by the Officer-in-Charge of R.K.Pur PS under Sections 420 and 40
The prosecution must prove fraudulent intent and misappropriation to establish liability under the TPID Act; mere breach of contract is a civil dispute, not a criminal offence.
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 court held that the age and health of the applicants, along with the nature of the allegations, justified granting bail despite serious charges under economic offences.
Criminal proceedings cannot be sustained for mere contractual disputes without evidence of fraudulent intent or misappropriation.
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
