EMPEROR Vs. KESHAVJI MADHAVJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in this case, who are alleged to be partners in the firm of Keshavji Madhavji, dealers in gunny bags, etc., have been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 6 Court, of an offence of cheating under Section 417 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a sum of Rs. 2,000.

(2.) The facts of the case are by no means clearly stated in the judgment of the learned Magistrate. They are set out as follows in the deposition of the complainant Chunilal, who is also a merchant dealing in gunny bags. He states that he had dealings with the accused's firm to a considerable amount up to September 9, 1928, on which date the account was closed and nothing remained due to the accused. On September 18, 1928, accused No. 1 came to the complainant and said that he required a loan of Rs. 500, which would be repaid on the following day. The complainant gave him the money. On the following day, that is, September 19, accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 came to the complainant. Accused No. 2 asked the complainant to give him a cheque for Rs. 1,500 of that date, September 19, against a cheque J of the accused's firm for the aggregate amount of Rs. 2,000 bearing date September 20. According to the complainant accused No. 2 said at this time that he was expecting some cheques from Ahmedabad and that the cheque for Rs. 2,000 would be duly honoured. The complainant agreed to the proposal. Accused No. 3 drew a cheque for Rs. 2,000, on behalf of the accused's firm and signed it in the presence of accused No. 2. The complainant gave his cheque for Rs, 1,500, which was paid into the accused's account and in due course cashed. The accused's cheque for Rs. 2,000, on the other hand was dishonoured when it was presented on the 20 and has been never met. Having failed to get payment on the 20 the complainant says that he made inquiries and learnt that the accused had absconded. The fact appears to be that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had gone away to Nasik, but accused No. 3 remained behind. Subsequently, on November 2, 1928, the complainant gave information to the police which led to this prosecution.

(3.) Mr. Thakor for the appellants has pointed out that in the complaint there is no reference to the accused having represented that they expected cheques from Ahmedabad. That is so. But it was not necessary that the complaint should contain all details of the statements made by the accused and there does not seem to be any good reason for disbelieving the complainant's evidence on the point.