RATHINDRA NATH SEN Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have before us in revn. the case of one Rathindra Nath Sen who was convicted, by the learned 1st Class Mag of Karimganj under Section 420, I.P.C. & sentenced to R.I. for 2 years & to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, or in default to undergo further R.I. for 6 months. On appeal, his conviction & sentence were confirmed by the Addl Ses, J., U.A.D.

(2.) THE material facts as alleged by the prosecution are these: On 5 -3 -46, one Uma Babu, the then local agent of the Pioneer Bank, with whom one Francis, the complainant in the case, had a current account, saw the complainant with demand draft for Rs. 30,000/ - drawn by the East India Commercial Bank, Naharkatia Branch, on its head office at 7, Swallow Lane, Calcutta, in favour of the appct Rathindra Nath Sen & asked the complainant if he could pay the appct Rs. 30,000/ - on the strength of the draft. The complainant desired to see the appct personally. Accordingly on 6 -3 -46 the appct went to the complainant & told him that he had to pay some money immediately to a film Co. which had come to Bhanga for shooting scenes & requested the complainant to advance Rs. 30,000/ - on the strength of the draft. The complainant agreed it drew a cheque, being cheque No. 14078 dated 3 -3 -46, in the sum of Rs. 30,000/ - on the Badarpur branch of the Pioneer Bank. The appct presented the cheque of Rs. 30,000/ - drawn by Francis in his favour to the Pioneer Bank which paid the appct Rs. 5000/ - in cash & issued a demand draft in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ - drawn on the Calcutta branch of the Pioneer Bank.

(3.) ON these facts, Francis brought a complaint in November, 1946 before the Mag against 4 persons the present appct one Subhendu Bikash Lawha who has been acquitted, one J.M. Chakravarty who did not appear as he had gone away to Pakistan, & J.C. Chakravarty, the Managing Director of the Calcutta branch of the East India Commercial Bank, who moved the Calcutta H.C. for quashing the complaint with success. While quashing the complaint against J.C. Chakravarty, the Calcutta H.C. observed that the Mag would be at liberty to issue fresh process against him if sufficient material was forth coming at the hearing. No fresh process however was ever issued against J.C. Chakravarty.