RAGHUNATHAN Vs. BALASUBRAMONYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against acquittal. The case against the accused was that he cheated the complainant and thereby dishonestly induced him to deliver an autoricksha to him. The autoricksha in question is K. L. R.2950. It was sold by the complainant to the accused for Rs. 2,200/- on 7 8 65. Towards the price three cheques were issued to the complainant, the one for Rs. 500/- to be cashed on 10 9 1965; the second one for Rs. 1000/-to be cashed on 10 10 65; and the third for Rs. 700 to be cashed on 15 10 1965. The cheques, when presented, were dishonoured. It is on this allegation that the complaint was brought.

(2.) The case of the accused was that the transaction was entered into between him and the brother of the complainant one Sankar, who had brought the autoricksha to his house on 24 7 1965. It is (rue that he had agreed to purchase it for Rs. 2,200/, provided it was in good working condition. A few days thereafter Sankar came to his house again and pestered him for money, and transfer letters etc., showing the transfer of the ownership of the ricksha to the accused, were also shown to him. On 5 9 65 the accused was entrusted with all the papers showing transfer of ownership and Sankar insisted in getting the money. The accused again told him that he would pay the money only after the vehicle was repaired and given to him in good condition. Sankar had promised to get it repaired within two days. The same day as he persisted in getting the money, three cheques were issued on the understanding that the vehicle would be got repaired and made road-worthy before 10 9 65. On 10 9 65 the accused went to the workshop and on enquiries made there, he learnt that some more repairs were needed for the vehicle to be in good working condition. So he immediately stopped payment of the cheque by writing to the Bank. He also sent a notice to the complainant. The learned Addl. First Class Magistrate of Ernakulam who tried the case has found that the offence of cheating has not been made out and has acquitted the accused.

(3.) Before me it was argued on behalf of the appellant that he was induced to part with the autoricksha on delivery to him of the cheques, on the representation that the accused had the necessary funds in the bank to get the cheques honoured. This representation was made by the accused with a dishonest intention and knowing full well that he had no cash in the bank. But on a careful consideration of the question it is seen that none of the elements that go to constitute the offence of cheating has been made out. No false representation was at all made by the accused so as to persuade the complainant to part with the property, believing those representations. The case of the complainant itself is that the accused had agreed to purchase the ricksha for Rs. 2,200/- and that three cheques were issued to him and the accused had also told the complainant that the cheques should be presented only on the dates specified in respect of each of them. Ext. P1 cheque was to be presented on 10 9 65, Ext. P4 cheque on 10 10 65 and Ext. P6 on 15 10 65. The accused's definite case is that the ricksha required repairs and that one Sankar on behalf of the complainant had undertaken to get it repaired. As Sankar insisted in getting the money the post dated cheques were issued. The first cheque, as we have seen was for Rs. 500/- and that was to be presented on 10 9 65. The complainant's men had undertaken to get the ricksha repaired by 10 9 65 and that was the reason why that cheque was issued in that manner; but on 10 9 65 the ricksha was not repaired in full and it was not in a fit condition to be put on the road. When the accused found that the ricksha was not made available he issued direction to the bank to stop payment. He was also prompt in sending the lawyer's notice to the complainant and his brother on 10 9 65 itself. The accused's case looks probable, especially in the light of the fact that three cheques were issued by him to be cashed on three different dates. If his intention was to cheat the complainant he could have issued a single cheque covering the whole amount and thus knocked off the property. Absolutely no misrepresentation was made and the property itself was not got delivered on the strength of any misrepresentation. Before the date of presentation of the first cheque the notice was issued by the accused and so the question of dishonouring the cheque did not strictly arise. It was enough if he had deposited money in the bank before the date fixed for presenting the cheque but that contingency did not arise. It would, therefore be incorrect to say that the accused's intention was to cheat the complainant and thus dishonestly induce him to part with property.