SUHASH Vs. SACHIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant -original complainant and respondent No. 1- accused.

(2.) Perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that judgment of the trial court acquitting respondent No. 1 original accused cannot be maintained. According to him, the trial court erred in invoking Section 23 illustration (f) of the Indian Act of 1872, (hereinafter referred to as "Contract Act" for short). He submits that the complainant has proved that respondent No. 1- accused had received money from him for securing the job, but he did not secure the job for the complainant in Nirmal Bang Securities Company (hereinafter referred to as "Company" for short), where the accused was working as Area Manager.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that against such transaction cheque issued, bounced. The matter was relating to private service and not public service and so illustration (f) of Section 23 of the Contract Act could not have been invoked by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Fancis Mathew Vs. State of Kerla,2005 AllMR(Cri) 251and submits that in that matter also there was similar transaction to get service in Premier Tyres and the service was not secured and the High Court of Kerla held that accused who had promised to arrange a job for brother of the complainant, had failed to get job and when the complainant demanded back the money, accused had issue cheque which had bounced. Learned counsel further submits that it was held that the accused could not be permitted to be benefited by retaining the amount which he had received unlawfully and illegally.