REAZUDDIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was the lessee of a garden at Muzaffarpur containing mangoes and leechis, negotiated with the complainant for a sub-lease of it. The terms adopted by the parties were that the complainant was to pay Rs. 100 to the accused; he was thenceforth to pay the rent which the accused had undertaken to pay, and to take the produce of the trees. The money was paid on the 25th December to the accused, who on the following 6 of February presented the sub-lease for registration. In March the complainant tried to obtain the chalan to enable him to pay the rent to the Military Engineering Department; but the accused paid the rent and the complainant later found that he had actually disposed of the fruit in the garden for something over Rs. 500.

(2.) He was convicted of cheating by an Honorary Magistrate of Dinapore and his appeal was summarily dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Patna.

(3.) Mr. S.K. Mitter on behalf of the petitioner argues that the conviction is bad, because there is no finding that at the time when the accused obtained the sum of Rs. 100 he intended to prevent the complainant from obtaining possession of the garden. On behalf of the complainant it is argued that his intention should be inferred from his conduct; he did actually prevent the complainant from entering into possession, so that it should be inferred that it was with this intention that he entered into the contract. The finding of the trial Court is that the accused was trying to get out of a bad bargain, since he sold the fruit for a much larger sum. This is certainly not a finding that from the beginning the accused had the intention of defrauding the complainant.