AJAB KISHORE Vs. LAL SATYA NARAYAN NATH SHAHDEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, after obtaining special leave, is directed against the order of acquittal dated 17-12-1990 passed by Sri P. H. Lal Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Ranchi in Complaint Case No. 60/87, through which complaint case bearing No. 60/87 preferred by the appellant was dismissed and the accused was acquitted of the charges.

(2.) The fact, in short, giving rise to this appeal is that the appellant instituted a complaint case as against opposite party, Lal Satya Narain Nath Shahdeo alleging therein that the accused approached the complainant that he is the absolute owner of M. S. Plot No. 973 corresponding to R. S. Plot No. 1226 of village Hatma measuring about 95 decimals and he wanted to sell the said property. The complainant then entered into an agreement with the accused that he along with his partner Mohd. Hanif' will purchase the satire land mentioned above for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and fifty thousand was paid in cash on 11-10-1984 to the accused and an agreement for sale was executed on 11-10-1984. After that the complainant East CrC 1996 (2)100 orally requested the accused to execute the sale deed, but he put off the matter and also did not refund the earnest money. Furthermore, on enquiry it was found that the accused had no such land and his title was defective and on the lands agreed to be sold to the complainant, a building was found which belonged to the Public Works Department (in short to be referred to as P W.D.) and thus it has been alleged that on the basis of forged document the complainant was induced and made to believe about the title of the land and, thus, the complainant and his partner were created to the tune of Rs. 50,000. In the complaint case, cognizance of the offence was taken and charge under Section 420, IPC was framed against the accused who is opposite party here. The accused claimed himself innocent and it was his defence fhat actually he got perfect tide over the land to which he agreed to sell to the complainant, but the complainant himself was not willing to get the sale deed executed within the stipulated period and expresed his unwillingness to purchase the land and as such according to the agreement, the earnest money, automatically stood forfeited and this complaint case had been falsely instituted to apply pressure tactics for refund of the earnest money. The trial court after trial came to the conclusion vide judgment dated 17-12-1990 that there was valid title over the land in question and it is the complainant who was negligent and had deliberately not get the sale deed executed and, thus, no case of cheating is made out and accordingly recorded the order the order of acquittal.

(3.) Now the only question for consideration is if there is evidence to prove the complicity of the accused and to justify his conviction under Section 420, IPC as alleged.