RADHAKISHAN CHINTAMAN Vs. CHAPA BHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications in revision have been filed by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Small Cause Court dismissing his suits based on two pro-notes. Though the plaintiff did not mention in the plaint the circumstances in which the pro-notes had been executed, they were brought out in evidence. The plaintiff, who is a jailor, reported to the police that two young boys -- sons respectively of the defendants in the Small Cause Suits -- had jointly stolen a watch belonging to him, and worth about Rs. 150/ -. A case was started as usual and when it was pending investigation the fathers of the two boys executed pro-notes for amounts totalling the estimated price of the watch. The cases were dropped.

(2.) IN the suits, the defence was that there was no consideration, the pronotes were executed under pressure or coercion, and at all events they were executed as part of the agreement to state prosecution and therefore void on grounds of public policy. The plaintiff contended that there was no evidence of threat or pressure and the fathers of the two boys voluntarily executed the notes being convinced that they had committed theft and that the owner of the watch i. e. , the plaintiff was entitled to their value from the boys or their parents. It was also pointed out on his behalf that the offence under Section 379, is after the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code in 1956, compoundable with the court's permission where the value of the property, as in the instant case, is less than Rs. 250/ -. The Small Cause Court, however, held that the consideration, if any, was void and accordingly dismissed the suits.

(3.) A problem like this arises in three types of suits which, while materially differing in other respects, have the common feature, that there is an attempt successful or otherwise, of stifling prosecution, and one of the parties either claims or has already received money or other valuable consideration, and the other party, as the case may be, resists the claim or seeks recovery or restitution of what it has given the prosecutor. The latter might have already recovered the value of his property, or entered into an agreement for payment to him by the accused or somebody interested in him, or thirdly, is, as in the present case, suing on the basis of a promissory note taken in accordance with the agreement. In all of them, the crucial question is whether the transaction is void under Section 23, Contract act on the ground of illegality or opposition to public policy.