SAYARABAI Vs. TMT KADAIMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents in the private complaint.

(2.) The appellant herein is a pawn broker having a shop at Kotagiri, Nilgiris District. According to the appellant, on 10.5.1990, A1 to A5/respondents herein approached him and represented that they are prepared to sell the tea factory at Jakkanarai village and after some negotiations, the price was fixed as Rs.17 lakhs. Thereafter, on 24.5.1990, accused Nos.1 to 5 came with Exs.P.1 and P.2 documents pertaining to the tea factory and Exs.P.3 and P.4, the plans of the tea factory and handed over to appellant herein. Believing their representation that they are the owners of the tea factory and they are prepared to sell the tea factory for Rs.17 lakhs, an agreement was prepared by the appellant herein and after paying Rs.15 lakhs in cash, he obtained the signatures of accused Nos.1 to 5. The balance of Rs.2 lakhs was to be paid within one month and the sale deed was to be executed within one month from that date. Since no sale deed was executed, a notice was issued by the appellants through their advocate on 18.6.1990 calling upon the accused/respondents herein to execute the sale deed. To that, Ex.P.8 was the reply sent by the accused wherein they have denied the execution of the agreement and also have stated that only A4 and A5 were the partners in the tea factory, which belonged to a partnership firm and A1 to A3 had nothing to do with them. The three other partners of the firm issued Ex.P.9 notice. They also denied the execution of the alleged agreement. Therefore, the appellant herein filed a private complaint before the Court after following the procedure laid down under Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) The complaint was registered and charges were framed; the witnesses were examined and thereafter the Magistrate, who tried the case, convicted the accused No.1 to 5 finding them guilty of the charge under Section 420 IPC. The learned trial Judge imposed sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-. Apart from that, the Magistrate also passed an order for payment of compensation to the complainant directly. He directed accused Nos.1 to 5 to pay Rs.3 lakhs each as compensation, which comes to Rs.15 lakhs, the sum alleged to have been paid by the appellant herein.