SOMANATH MOHANTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision filed by the sole petitioner against an order dated 28-4-66 passed by Sri. S. K. Patro, Sessions Judge. Puri, confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by Sri B. B. Das, Magistrate. 1st Class khandapara dated 20-7-54.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case an that on 12-6-63 at about 4 p. m. the petitioner overheard a conversation between the informant (P. W 1) and P. W 2 that the homestead property of the former was going to be sold in execution of a decree against him and that he was in difficulty on that account, and introduced himself to P. W. 1 as a clerk working in the land-mortgage bank, Sunduria, and volunteered to save the situation by procuring a loan of Rs. 150/- from the said bank for P. W 1, provided he was remunerated with a sum of Rs. 25/- for his services. Being induced by the representation and promise of the accused. P. W. 1 who had no money with him approached P. W. 6, a Miitri in the tile-factory where p. W. 1 was working as a mere labourer, for a loan of Rs 25. P. W. 8 advanced a sum of Rs. 25/- to P. W. 1 towards his wages and then P. W. 1 paid this amount to the accused for his promised help to secure the loan from the land-mortgagebank. P. W. 1 waited for sometime for the said loan and was ultimately disappointed. In the meantime, he gathered that the accused had similarly cheated several other persons. Thereafter P. W. 1 approached the accused on 216-63 for refund of the amount of Rs. 25/-taken by him, but the accused denied the deal. Then P. W. 1 lodged F. I. R. (Ext. 1) at the police station and after investigation, the police" charge-sheeted the accused who underwent trial for offence under Sections 419 and 420, I. P. C.

(3.) THE defence of the accused was a complete denial. He also filed a written statement to that effect. His further plea was that one Bharat Dalai the Sar-panch who was inimically disposed towards him, had used P. W. 1 as his stooge and had foisted this false case against him.