NAGI REDDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The point that arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether the facts that give rise to an illegal contract can attract the provisions of Section 420 I. P. C.

(2.) The Inspector of Police, C.B. C.I.D., Hyderabad had filed a charge sheet before the Judl. lat Class Magistrate, Suryapet, alleging that the accused with a common intention made a false representation to one Syed Mohmmed Iqbal stating that if he pays Rs 30,000/- in genuine currency notes, they would in return pay him four times that amount in counterfeit currency notes, that believing that representation Syed Md. Iqbal and his friends contacted the accused at Suryapet on the night of 23-12-70 at about 3-30 A.M. and showed the accused a sum of Rs. 30,500/- in genuine currency notes which they had brought to be paid to the accused in return for their giving four times that amount in counterfeit currency notes, that after verifying the correctness of the amount, Syed Md. Iqbal was taken to the car where the accused were and shown a box containing four times that amount in genuine though represented by counterfeit currency notes, that after it was counted, Md. Iqbal was asked to bring his box containing the genuine currency notes of Rs. 30,500/- and by the time he returned with that box, the accused who had ready with them another box containing waste paper and stones, exactly similar to the one in which they bad shown their alleged counterfeit currency notes to Syed Md. Iqbal, took the box from syed Md. Iqbal containing genuine currency notes worth Rs. 30,500/- and gave him the box containing the waste paper and stones and later on opening the same Syed Md. Iqbal and his friends found it to contain only stones and waste paper, but by then the accused had escaped with the genuine currency notes of Rs 30500/- given to them and hence the charge under Section 420 I. P. C. It was contended before the Magistrate before the framing of the charge by the counsel for the accused that the agreement entered into by the accused with Syed Mdi Iqbal to return four times the counterfeit currency notes for genuine currency notes, was itself an illegal agreement which cannot be enforced in a court of law and hence it cannot form the basis of a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. This contention was rejected by the Magistrate by his order and a charge was framed for the offence under Section 420 I. P. C. against the accused. Hence this petition to revise that order and quash the charge.

(3.) In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the accused now relies on the decision reported in Emperor Vs. Jani Hiran of the Bombay High Court. That was a case where A had agreed to let her daughter on hire to B, for concubinage for a period of one year in consideration of B paying her Rs. 70/- and B had paid Rs. 35/- in advance and subsequently A refused to deliver her daughter to B or to return the sum of Rs. 35/- advanced by him. On these facts A was convicted of cheating, and on revision it was held that as the accused and the complainant had entered into a contract which was clearly void for immorality the complainant would not be entitled to obtain any relief from a Civil Court for its breach and there is no reason why the complainant should be allowed to prosecute the accused on a charge of cheating and the conviction was set aside.