I.S. NEELAKANTAN ROW Vs. J.G. RAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DOOR No. 3 Muniappa Mudali Street, at Madras belongs to the Petitioner, P.W. 1. J.G. Rajan approached him in the company of P.W. 2, of 14th June 1967 and requested him to let out the upstairs portion which was likely to fall vacant. Petitioner agreed to let it out on a monthly rent of Rs. 85 per month with effect from 1st July 1967. On that day he demanded an amount of Rs. 1000 and this was paid on 19th June 1967. Documents Ex P.W. 4 and P. 5 were executed and handed over to PW. 1. On 3rd July 1967 the Petitioner told P.W. 1 that he was not willing to let out the portion. With these allegations P W. 1 filed a complaint before the Fourth Presidency Magistrate, George Town, Madras against the Petitioner for an offence under Section 420, I.P.C. He deposed to the facts stated above P.W. 2, who accompanied him on the 19th June spoke to the payment of the amount of Rs. 1000. When questioned in court the Petitioner stated that it was P.W. 1 who told him on 30th June 1967 that he did not require the upstairs portion as originally fixed and that he wanted on that score a return of the amount of Rs. 1000 already paid as hand loan Disbelieving his version and observing that as per the representations made by the Petitioner, P.W. 1 had parsed with the amount of Rs. 1000, the learned Magistrate convicted him under Section 420, I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 100.

(2.) THE correctness of this conviction is now canvassed in this revision.

(3.) MERE breach of a contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution. The distinction between a case of mere breach of contract and one of cheating depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of the alleged inducement. Where there is no clear and conclusive evidence of the criminal intention of the accused at the time the offence is said to have been committed, there could be no conviction for cheating.