STATE OF M P Vs. DEVENDRA KUMAR PANDYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused -respondent Devendra Kunar Pandya (whom shall for brevity call as accused), was charged with and tried for the offence punishable under section 406 or 420 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sarangpur, ( in Criminal Trial No. 545 of 1977 ) who finding him not guilty, has acquitted him. The State, with the permission of this Court, appeals.

(2.) IT appears that though the cheques in question during investigation were seized by the Investigating Officer, they were in spite of opportunities given to the prosecution, were not produced at the trial. Poonamchand {PW -1), however, produced their photostat copies (Articles A and B).

(3.) ON these facts,' when charged with and tried for the specified offences (punishable under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code), the accused denied his guilt, but did not dispute that the peanuts in question had been sold to him on two occasions, that Premnarayan (PW -2) was the Munim of Poonamchand (PW -1) and Banwarilal (PW -5) was a partner of Dalai Rajkurmar and Company. He by his typed submissions, explained that not only the goods were to be delivered at Indore but also that the payment was to be made there, but it was not to be made in cask The cheques which he had given were with the understanding that he was thereby to save the extra amount which he would have been otherwise obliged to pay for a delayed payment. The complainant (Poonamchand PW -1) would not have got this extra amount had he got the two cheques encashed then and there. The complainant did not present the cheques for encashment on the dates in question but on 14 -12 -1976 and 15 -12 -1976 respectively. The transactions of sale of peanuts and delivery of cheques were through Banwarilal (PW -5). Banwarilal (PW -5) with the consent of Poonamchand (PW -1) on 10 -1 -1977 after acknowledging the receipt of payment in instalments on that day, had received Rs. 2,000/ -. and on 11 -1 -1977 Rs. 1,000/ -. The complainant Poonamchand, however, turning back on his agreement after a lapse of about seven and a half months lodged a false complaint.