VASUDEO KULKARNI Vs. SURYA KANT BHATT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, an advocate of 25 years standing, was charged under S. 420, Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted by the trial Court holding the matter to be of civil nature. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh on appeal at the instance of the complainant (the first respondent herein) set aside the acquittal and convicted the appellant under S. 420, I.P.C. and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to a fine of Rs. 600/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The complainant is the son of one Dinubhai, a senior partner of Dinubhai and Co., with its head office in Bombay and a branch office in Indore. There were two partners, namely, the complainant's father and one M.C. Mehta. Mehta ceased to be a partner in the firm with effect from July 5, 1960. A civil suit was instituted by Dinubhai against Nai Duniya, Indore, a daily newspaper, impleading M.C. Mehta also as a co-defendant. The suit was decreed against Nai Duniya but was dismissed against M.C. Mehta with costs amounting to Rs. 612/- awarded to him. The complainant was acting as a junior to the appellant in this suit as well as in several other suits filed by the firm against others. It is alleged by the complainant that about February 8, 1965, the appellant made a demand from him, along with other amounts, of a sum of Rs. 612/- being the costs awarded to Mehta in the aforesaid suit by making a representation that he had already deposited the amount in court from his own funds. Depending upon this statement, the complaint proceeds, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1000/- which included the amount of Rs. 612/- towards the costs awarded.

(3.) The firm appealed against the decree and it appear a compromise was entered with Mehta whereby Mehta relinquished his claim for costs of Rs. 612/-. This happened on March 10, 1967. On that very date the appellant returned to Dinubhai the sum of Rs. 612/- by a crossed cheque stating that "this appeal is just now disposed of by the Honble High Court, Indore. I am, therefore, expected to remit this sum to you". Even so, the complainant, Dinubhai's son, lodged a complaint in the court of the Additional District Magistrate, Indore City, on September 21, 1967, bringing a charge of cheating against the appellant by citing the only witness in the complaint being the Record Keeper of the High Court. Dinubhai, his father, was not even mentioned as a witness in the complaint nor was he later examined in the case.