RUDRAPAL SINGH Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant Rudrapal Singh was convicted by a Magistrate, 1st class, Rae Bareli, on 19th April 1949, under Section. 417, Penal Code, and sentenced to a fine Rs. 500/-. His appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) The prosecution case was that the applicant Rudrapal Singh owed some money to the complainant Shankar Singh, that the demand was made many times and eventually the applicant sent an insured cover for Rs. 400/- to Shankar Singh from Mazgaon post office, Bombay the insured cover was received on 25th May 1946, at the Rahwan post office within whose Circle the complainant resided. According to the practice of the post office, covers insured for more than Rs. 100/- are delivered at the post office itself, Shankar Singh took delivery of it on 27th May 1946, and signed the acknowledgment. The cover was opened in the presence of the post master and some other persons and it was found to contain 13 currency notes of Rs. 10/- each and a letter. The cover when received was in proper condition. It did not appear to have been tampered with. The seals were intact and the weight corresponded with the weight noted on the cover. All these facts were brought to the notice of the postal authorities. In the normal course an inquiry was conducted by these authorities. The applicant himself was informed in Bombay that the insured cover contained only Rs. 130/-. The applicant himself protested that he had sent currency notes worth Rs. 400/- and not Rs. 130/- and later on filed a civil suit and actually obtained an ex parte decree for the amount against Shankar Singh in Bombay. The complainant prosecuted the applicant for an offence under Section 417, Penal Code. The applicant's defence was that he had sent Rs. 400/- and he was not responsible for the shortage and there was no cheating. The defence was not accepted and both the Courts below have believed the prosecution story that the applicant Rudrapal Singh actually sent only Rs. 130/- and not Rs. 400/-, as he purported to have done, and that this constituted an offence under Section 417, Penal Code.

(3.) The learned counsel for the applicant sought to challenge the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below, but no good reasons has been shown why this Court should interfere with such a finding of fact. It is clearly established that applicant sent in fact in the insured cover not Rs. 400 but only Rs. 130.