TRILOCHAN KHUNTIA Vs. BATAKRUSHNA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, these appeals were heard analogously and this judgment will govern both.

(2.) The respondent who was the accused in the court below was the Executive Officer of Nrusinghnath Dev Jew, Endowment of Kendupali. He had intimacy with the appellant who was the complainant in the criminal cases. The respondent represented to the petitioner that there was shortage of fund for performance of the Seva Puja of the deity and that he had authority from the Trust Board of the Endowment to incur loans and repay the same by supplying paddy after harvest by allowing concession at the rate of Rs. 10/- per bag. On such condition, the appellant agreed to advance loans to the respondent and did so as here under Trilochan Khuntia Vs. Batakrushna Mohanty IMPORTANT POINT Violation of a contract is not cheating. 13.10. 1977-Rs. 100.00 18.10. 1977-Rs.300.006 2.11.1977-Rs. 500.00 11. 12.1977-Rs. 100.00 15.12.1977-Rs. 100.00 2.1.1978-Rs. 700.00 Sometime after the last transaction, the respondent was suspended from service by the Commissioner of Endowments and was transferred to some other place. As a result, the respondent neither repaid the loans nor supplied paddy as had been agreed upon. The successor Trust Board did not take any responsibility for the loans on the ground that - the same had not been accounted for in the books of accounts and that the respondent had not made over charge of all the accounts to the Managing Trustee. On account of the above, the appellant felt that he had been created outright by the respondent and so be filed two complaints in the learned courts below.

(3.) The plea of the respondent who also examined himself as P.W. I was that on being authorised by the Trust Board of he Endowment, he had incurred the loans and had passed documents to the appellant evidencing each transaction. He had also accounted for the loans which had actually been spent for the Seva Puja of the deity. He did not incur the loans on his personal account. Accordingly, he pleaded not guilty to the charge under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code framed against him.