RAMESHWAR NATH TIWARI Vs. CHANDRABHAN NATH TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS memo of appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 15.6.1988 passed by 6th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Siwan in Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1986 acquitting respondent No. 1 by setting aside the conviction and sentences of six months under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which was passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Siwan in Trial No. 195 of 1986/C. Case No. 664 of 1990.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that the respondent Chandrabhan Tiwary of village Chita Khal, P.S. Guthani, District Siwan came to the Darwaza of the appellant and asked for Rs. 100/ - for an urgent work. The respondent Chandrabhan Tiwary also agreed to sell his plot No. 959 in Khata No. 451 measuring 11 dhur 6 dhurki for a consideration sum of Rs.

(3.) ,500/ -. It was also decided that the appellant would pay Rs. 100/ - to the respondent as advance and thereafter Rs. 500/ - at the time of registry in presence of Registrar and rest money amounting to Rs. 2,900/ - would be paid at the time of handing over of registration receipt to respondent by the appellant. According to this settlement the appellant paid Rs. 100/ - to the respondent on 7.7.1980. Accordingly, the appellant purchased stamp worth Rs. 111/ - in the Registry Office from Stamp Vendor. A Sale Deed, in question, was prepared by the deed writer in direction or respondent Chandra Bhan Tiwary, which was then signed by him. (Exhibit -1). Later all the witnesses also signed on the sale Deed. The Sale Deed was registered and appellant paid Rs. 500/ - in presence of Registrar. Thereafter, the appellant came to know from Chandra Bhushan Tiwary that the respondent Chandrabhan Tiwary had already sold the land, in question, to him for a consideration of Rs. 3,500/ - on 4.7.1980. A copy of Sale Deed dated 4.7.1980 executed in favour of Chandra Bhushan Tiwary was also procured to ascertain the facts in this way the appellant found himself cheated by the respondent and thereafter filed a complaint petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, who took cognizance against the respondent under sections 420 and 120 -B of Indian Penal Code. The case was later tried by Judicial Magistrate First Class, who convicted them under Section 420, IPC and sentenced the respondent Chandrabhan Tiwary R.I. for six months. Against this order appeal was preferred before the Additional District Judge, Siwan, who acquitted the respondent by setting aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent by his impugned order. 3. In support of the cases, the complainant examined as many as six witnesses. PW 1 is Udayraj Nath Tiwari PW 2 is Jamadar Pandey; PW3 is Sahdeo Choudhary; PW 4 is Bachcha Nath Tiwari; PW 5 is Rameshwar Tiwari; and PW 6 is Panchdeo Pandey. PW 5 is complainant himself. PW 4 has not been produced for cross -examination. The witnesses supported the case in respect of sale of 11 dhurs and 6 1/2 dhurkis of having plot No. 959, Khata No. 451 for a sum of Rs. 3,500/ -to the complainant. The mode and nature of the transaction have already been narrated. Therefore, it is useless to repeat the factual aspect of the case in detail once again.