SUBHASH CHANDRA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 1-1-2000 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Criminal Appeal No. 97/1998 arising out of the judgment dated 8-5-1998 passed by J.M.F.C., Raigarh (Shri A.B. Toppo) in Criminal Case No. 551/1995, whereby the conviction of the applicant recorded by the J.M.F.C. for offence under Section 420 of IPC, has been confirmed but the sentence imposed in so far as it relates to imprisonment has been modified and reduced from 2 years rigorous imprisonment to 6 months rigorous imprisonment. Brief facts of the case, according to prosecution version, are that the applicant/revisionist has purchased 173 bags of Sawarna paddy from the complainant valued at Rs. 50,000/- with an assurance that the applicant would pay the price of the paddy within a period of 11/2 months, but he did not pay the same to the complainant. When the complainant-Hetram was in need of money to purchase a new motorcycle and on a demand being made by the Complainant-Hetram for the same, the applicant/revisionist had given his recently purchased motorcycle (Suzuki) to the complainant Hetram with an understanding that the Motorcycle is being handed over in lieu of part payment of the price of Paddy and the applicant will be paying the remaining price within a reasonable time. Thereafter, the applicant neither got the motorcycle registered in the name of the complainant Hetram nor paid the price and threatened the complainant that if his motorcycle is not returned to him, he (complainant/Hetram) will be implicated in a criminal case. Therefore, the complainant/Hetram lodged written report and on the basis of the same, offence under Section 420 of the IPC has been registered against the applicant.

(2.) Heard counsel for the parties and perused LCR as well as judgment of the trial Court and the impugned judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant/revisionist has contended that the dispute which had arisen between the applicant/revisionist and the complainant/Hetram is purely of a civil nature and the trial Court has committed a manifest error of law in taking cognizance of offence under Section 420 of IPC and convicting the applicant for the same and on appeal, the appellate Court has also committed grave error of law in maintaining the conviction of the applicant because looking to the nature of the dispute, no offence can be said to have been committed by the applicant.