SHRIPAD Vs. SANIKATTA CO-OPERATIVE SALT SALE SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit to recover Rs. 663-8-0 due on a promissory note of Rs. 620 passed by the defendants to plaintiff No. 1 on January 3, 1934. The defendants contended that the promissory note was void as a part of its consideration was the withdrawal of a non- compoundable criminal case then pending against their brother Vishnu. The trial Court held that it was so and dismissed the suit. In appeal the learned District Judge took a different view and awarded the plaintiffs claim with costs.

(2.) The facts of this case which are either admitted or held proved may be briefly stated. Plaintiff No. 2 is the Sanikatta Co-operative Salt Sale Society, Ltd., Sanikatta, and plaintiff No. 1 is its secretary. In July, 1933, the defendants brother Vishnu entered into1 a contract with the Society to transport the Society's salt to the salt depots at different places and he was entriftted with seventeen consignments for delivery between July and October, 1933. In October, 1933, Vishnu disappeared and it was discovered that he had misappropriated five of those consignments. Vishnu could not be traced and the secretary of the Society filed a complaint against one of Vishnu's motor drivers before the Police Sub-Inspector of Haveri. The secretary then went to Kumta and explained the situation to Mr. Divgi pleader. Defendant No. 1 was then a clerk in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Kumta. He was invited by Mr. Divgi on December 8, 1933, and there was some discussion between them about the. complaint intended to be lodged before the Police Sub-Inspector at Gokarn, in whose jurisdiction that misappropriation was believed to have taken place. Eventually the secretary did lodge a complaint against Vishnu and his motor driver. Although Vishnu's whereabouts were not known to the secretary, it appears that the defendants were in touch with him and managed to obtain from him a promissory note for Rs. 300 in favour of the Society on December 15, 1933. On the same day Vishnu transferred two Government securities, each of Rs. 1,000 to defendant No. 1. Thereafter on December 28, 1933, defendant No. 2 deposited Rs. 400 with Mr. Divgi pleader and also handed over Vishnu's promissory note for Rs, 300, with a letter requesting him to keep the amount and the promissory1 note with him until the matter was compromised. Thereafter on January 3, 1934, defendant No. 1 and the secretary met in Karwar at the house of the latter's father-in-law Mr. Murdeshwar. They all then went to another pleader Mr. Mavinkurve. There defendant No. 1 requested the secretary to withdraw the case against his brother Vishnu, but the secretary refused to do so. On the next day the secretary was again persuaded to go to Mr. Mavinlcurve's house and there he agreed to give a letter to the District Superintendent of Police stating that the Society had no objection to withdraw the case against Vishnu. He accordingly signed exhibit 70 addressed to the District Superintendent of Police to the following effect :- If your honour is pleased to permit withdrawal of the case, my Society does not wish to object.

(3.) The defendants then passed the promissory note in suit in favour of the Society and also gave a letter to Mr. Divgi pleader requesting him to hand over the deposit of Rs. 400 to him. Mr. Mavinkurve had prepared one application to the District Superintendent of Police and another to the District Magistrate in the name of Vishnu requesting that the case against him should be withdrawn. The defendants had already procured a vakalatnama signed by Vishnu for being presented with those applications. fhe applications stated that the case was of a civil nature and that the complainant had no objection to its withdrawal. The secretary, however, did not sign those applications. Mr. Mavinkurve presented them to the District Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate respectively. The District Magistrate, however, did not allow the withdrawal and the complaint was proceeded with and Vishnu was eventually convicted and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300 in April, 1934. As the defendants did not pay the#amount of the promissory note to the Society, the plaintiffs filed this suit to recover it and the question is whether the promissory note is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act on the ground that its consideration or a part of it was a promise to stifle prosecution and, therefore, opposed to public policy.