H K BHEDWAR Vs. RAO SAHEB CSRRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a Rule was issued, calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta to show case why the order dismissing the petitioner's complaint should not be set aside and why further enquiry into the said complaint should not be made and process issued against the opposite party under Section 417, Indian Penal Code, or such other further order made as to this Court might seem fit and proper.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the application on which the Rule was issued, are as follows: The petitioner is a licensed Bookmaker of the Calcutta Real Turf Club and has a permanent book for the season 1922-1923 within the first enclosure of the Calcutta Race Course. On the assurance of the opposite party, who is a Deputy Director of Commercial Intelligence, employed under the Government of India, that he would pay up his losses, if any, punctually on the settling flay, the petitioner allowed the opposite party to take bets on credit on the 9th of December 1922. The debts due to the petitioner by and from the opposite party in respect of bets on credit amounted to a sum of Rs. 1,591. The opposite party failed to pay the said sum of Rs. 1,591 on the then following settling day and accordingly the petitioner decided not to allow to the opposite party any more credit until the said sum was paid off in full. Thereupon the opposite party sent to the petitioner on the 15 December 1922, a crossed cheque for Rs. 1,501 on the Indian Industrial Bank. The said cheque was sent in the evening after banking hours. The opposite party assured the petitioner that the said cheque would be paid on presentation and on such assurance the petitioner allowed the opposite party to take bets with him on credit on the 16 December 1922, and in respect of such bets taken on credit on the 16 December 1922, the opposite party became indebted to the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 3, 450. The cheque referred to above was presented for payment on the 18 December 1922, when it was dishonoured. The opposite party was thereupon communicated with and he gave a fresh cheque for Rs. 5,041 to cover his losses on the 9th and the 16 of December and assured, the petitioner that there would be no difficulty whatsoever in getting the said cheque cashed. It appears that the petitioner relied on the assurance of the opposite party and allowed him to take further bets on credit on the 23 and 26th. December 1922. The opposite party became indebted to the petitioner in a further sum of Rs. 752. Meanwhile, the said, cheque for Rs. 5,041 was presented for payment on the 28th December 1922 when it was dishonoured. The petitoner thereafter made various efforts to obtain payment of the two sums of Rs. 5,041 and Rs. 752 but without success. Eventually, on the 1 March 1923, the petitioner applied to the Chief Presidency, Magistrate of Calcutta for process against the opposite party under Section 417, Indian Renal Code, for having cheated him in respect of the said cheques. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that on the facts no case or cheating had been made out and accordingly dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner it has been contended before us that the opposite party by representing to him that the cheques in question would be honoured and thereby the dues up to the 16 of December would be satisfied, induced -the petitioner to accept his bets on credit, i.e., bets which the opposite party would otherwise have had to pay in cash, and" that the petitioner by accepting such bets on credit lost a sum of Rs. 752 which would otherwise have come to his till. It is argued, therefore, that the opposite party has deceived the petitioner and has fraudulently or dishonestly induced the petitioner to take bets on credit from him, which he (the petitioner) would not have done, if he were not so deceived, and which act has caused him a loss of Rs. 752.