BISHNU PADA DEB Vs. KING-EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Bishnupada Deb has been convicted on four charges. The first is a charge of having conspired with three persons to cheat one Harey Krista Routh. The other three charges relate to three specific acts of cheating committed in pursuance of this conspiracy. On the charge of conspiracy the appellant has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-or in default rigorous imprisonment for six months. On the other three charges he has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment on each charge, all the substantive sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.

(2.) This case was instituted by a complaint which was laid as long ago as the 24 October 1921, At the first trial before the Honorary Presidency Magistrate there was a serious error in the framing of the charges which necessitated the conviction and sentences of the appellant and his co-accused being set aside by this Court and a re-trial on a properly framed charge ordered. At this re-trial the two co-accused of the appellant pleaded guilty at a late stage. The hearing of this appeal has lasted more than two days. Having regard to the length of time that has been occupied by the trial we are anxious not to delay the final disposal of this case. Today being the last day of the term, in order that we may sign the judgment before the Court closes, it is impossible for us to deliver such a lengthy judgment as we should have done under other circumstances. But though we shall deal with the case somewhat briefly we have carefully considered the able defence set up on behalf of the appellant by the learned vakils who appeared on his behalf, and the shortness of our judgment does not mean that those arguments have not received careful consideration. Our task is rendered easier by the great care with which the learned Honorary Magistrate has tried the case and we find ourselves in substantial agreement with all his findings.

(3.) The main facts of the case are as follows: We are satisfied on the evidence that the firm of William Anderson & Co., of which the appellant and one of his co-accused Mears and one Dhirendra, who turned King's Evidence, were partners, was a firm which did very little real business but was making money by the unlawful method of ordering goods on credit and selling them at a lower price than the cost price, but at a higher price than any sum actually paid in part payment by the firm. The complainant Routh was induced to believe that the firm was a genuine firm doing a large business and his first transaction with them was to agree to supply them with a number of barrels of cement. On entering into this contract he was told that Dhirendra, the informer, would supply part of the cement to the firm on his behalf and that Harendra Ghose, one of the co-accused, would supply the remainder. The understanding was that he should pay cash to these two persons and recover the amount payable by the firm at a later date. In pursuance of this agreement he paid several thousand rupees to Dhirendra and Harendra, but never received any money from the firm. When he pressed for payment he was induced to take up the post of banian of the firm on the understanding that he must pay Rs. 50,000 into the firm. To gain this agency he paid a sum of nearly Rs. 20,000. Subsequently he was induced to substitute the arrangement that be should be a banian for a partnership arrangement and the deed of a partnership was Actually drawn up Then, finding that he was getting nothing from the firm, he complained to the Deputy Commissioner of Police.