A.C. BUDWAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision by one A.C. Budwar who has been convicted under Sec. 420, Indian Penal Code by a Special Magistrate, 1st Class, Meerut, and has been sentenced to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default 6 months further rigorous imprisonment, which conviction and sentence has been confirmed in appeal by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut.

(2.) The case was started on the complaint of one Narain Das who alleged that in July 1949 the accused came to him and represented to him that he had entered into a contract with the Government of India to supply on hire some jeep cars for the use of the Police Force at Delhi and suggested to him that it was a profitable business and he should enter into partnership with him; that he accepted the suggestion and offered him Rs. 14,000/ - for the purchase of jeep cars as desired by him; that subsequently he made inquiries and learnt that the representation which bad been made to him and on the basis of which the money had been obtained from him, was false and that the accused had not obtained any contract from the Government of India as represented by him; that the accused besides Rs. 14,000/ - was also supplied with a jeep car as requested by him. It was further alleged in the complaint that when it was discovered that the accused had not obtained any contract he was asked to repay the amount and return the jeep car; that he gave two cheques for the total amount of Rs. 14,000/ - in repayment of the sum which had been taken by him but when the cheques were presented for being cashed they could not be cashed as the accused had stopped payment. It was also stated that at the time the cheques were issued by the accused he had not the amount to his credit for which he had issued the cheques.

(3.) The accused in his statement admitted that he had issued two post-dated cheques for the total amount of Rs. 14,000/ - in favour of the complainant, but he denied that they were issued in repayment of Rs. 14,000/ - which were alleged to have been taken by him from the complainant. His case was that the cheques for Rs. 14,000/ - were given to the complainant towards the purchase of the film 'Meena Bazar' owned by Indra Films, Ltd. in which the son of the complainant was a partner, but as the film was not given to him he stopped payment of the cheques. He also denied that he had made any representation to the complainant that he had obtained a contract with the Government of India for the supply of jeep cars for the Police Force or had obtained any money from him on such representation. His case was that the complainant had purchased certain articles and it was in lieu of the price of those articles that the complainant had given the cheques for Rs. 500/ - and Rs. 8,000/ - which amount had been advanced by the accused on his behalf at the time of the purchase as the complainant had no ready cash with him.