HARENDRA NATH DAS Vs. JYOTISH CHANDRA DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charge framed in this case runs in these words, "That you, on or about the 19th September 1923, in Calcutta, deceived Mr. E. J. Pithie of Birla Jute Manufacturing Company Ld., by inducing him to accept a bought note signed by your firm as brokers on behalf of Santok Chand Manik Chand, who you represented, were a respectable firm of jute dealers carrying on business at 65, Nur Mull Lohia Lane, Calcutta, knowing that such representation was false: and farther by inducing the said Mr. E. J, Pithie, by means of such representation, to give a receipt for the said bought note; and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420. I. P. C."

(2.) The charge, on a proper analysis, avers that the accused deceived Mr. E.J. Pithie by making a false " representation that he, or rather his firm, was acting as brokers on behalf of Santok Chand Manik Chand, who, according to the accused, were a respectable firm of jute dealers carrying on business at 65, Nur Mull Lohia Lane, Calcutta, that by the said false representation lie induced Mr. E. J. Pithie to accept the bought note signed by his firm, as such brokers, and further induced Mr. E. J. Pithie 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 Santok Chand Manik Chand has no existence, and that the story of the accused's firm acting as brokers to that firm is a myth, and further that the accused gave a bought note in respect of 2,000 bales of jute purporting to be in the name of Santok Chand Manik Chand and induced Mr. Pithie to accept it and give a receipt for it. Do these facts constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code?