SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

Present: Swan, J
KANAGARATNAM – Appellant
Versus
BARTHOLOMEUSZ – Respondent


Advocates:
S. Nadesan, with T. K. Curtis, for the accused appellant.
A. Mahendrarajah, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Kanagaratnam V. Bartholomeusz

1954 Present: Swan J.

P. KANAGARATNAM, Appellant, and W. A. BARTHOLOMEUSZ
(Inspector of Police), Respondent

S. C. 438-J. M. C. Colombo, 44,201

Penal Code-Cheating-Section 403-Meaning of term " property ".

In a prosecution under section 403 of the Penal Code for cheating and dishonestly inducing a delivery of property, it was proved that the accused had deceived the Assistant Controller of Exchange into believing that he, the accused, had not purchased foreign exchange for travel for the year 1950 and thereby had induced the Assistant Controller to deliver to the accused a permit for foreign exchange for travel to the value of Rs. 750.

Held, that a permit for foreign exchange for travel could be regarded as " property " within the meaning of section 403 of the Penal Code

APPEAL from a judgment of the Joint Magistrate's Court, Colombo.

S. Nadesan, with T. K. Curtis, for the accused appellant.

A. Mahendrarajah, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.

Cur. adv. vult.

April 5, 1954. SWAN J.-

The appellant was charged on two counts :-(1) that between 21st July 1950 and 27th July 1950, he deceived the Assistant Controller of Exchan









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top