JOTUMAL THAKURDAS THAWANI Vs. O P RALHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Application No. 309 of 1990, which was later on converted into Writ Petition No. 372 of 1991, is filed by the petitioner (original complainant) against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original accused), being aggrieved by the order dated 27th July, 1990 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay. By his impugned order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision preferred by the complainant Jotumal Thakurdas Thawani, whereby he was aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, discharging the accused for the offence of cheating punishable under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) FEW facts may be narrated, which are as follows: it was the case of the complainant before the Magistrate that his family consisting of 22 members was doing business of bankers and financers, and the financing was mainly restricted to production of films. Accused No. 1 O. P. Ralhan was a producer, actor, writer and director and the complainant Mr. Jotumal Thawani had financed Mr. Rajhan for his film Papi some eight years before the filing of the complaint.

(3.) THE complainant has alleged that in August, 1980, accused No. 1 approached him for finance of his film Pyas. An agreement was entered into between the complainant Mr. Jotumal Thawani and accused No. 1 on 12th of August, 1980 and in pursuance of that agreement, the complainant paid in all a sum of Rs. 24,64,000/- to the accused for the production of his film Pyas. It was the term of the Agreement that whenever the complainant was to make the payment of the finance, the accused was to give him a post-dated cheque towards the repayment of the amount, and if the accused could not arrange for the repayment, an option was given to him to take back this cheque and issue a fresh post-dated cheque again at the time of the payment of further finance. Finally, the accused gave twenty-one cheques to the complainant towards the full repayment of the amount of loan. But when all these cheques were deposited by the complainant in his Bank, they were dishonoured. Moreover, the accused also failed to repay the amount.