HARENDRA NATH DAS Vs. JOTISH CHANDRA DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charge framed in this case runs in these words; That you on or about the 19 September 1923 in Calcutta deceived Mr. B.J. Pithia of Birla Jute Manufacturing Co., Ltd. by inducing him to accept a Bought Note signed by your firm as brokers on behalf of Santoke Chand Manik Chand who, you represented, were respectable firm of jute dealers carrying on business at 65, Noormull Lohia Lane, Calcutta knowing that such representation was false, and further by inducing the said Mr. B.J. Pithia by means of such representations to give a receipt for the said Bought Note, and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The charge, on a proper analysis, avers that the accused deceived Mr. B.J. Pithia by making a false representation that he or rather his firm was acting as brokers on behalf of Santoke Chand Manik Chand, who, according to the accused, were a respectable firm of jute dealers carrying on business at 65, Noormull Lohia Lane, Calcutta, that by the said false representation ho induced Mr. B.J. Pithia to accept the Bought Note signed by his firm as such brokers and further induce Mr. B.J. Pithia to give a receipt for the said Bought Note.

(3.) For the purposes of the present application we must proceed on the assumption that all the facts alleged in the charge have been proved; we take it as proved that the firm of Santoke Chand Manik Chand has no existence and that the story of the accused's firm acting as broker to that firm is a myth, and further that the accused gave a Bought Note in respect of 2000 bales of jute purporting to be in the name of Santoke Chand Manik Chand and induced Mr. Pithia to accept it and give a receipt for it. Do these facts constitute an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.