W H LOCKLEY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused has been convicted of the offence of cheating. He was employed in Messrs. Oakes & Co. as Works Manager. Mr. Wilson was employed in the same firm in a slightly higher capacity. The case for the prosecution is that the accused received Rs. 3,000 from Mr. Wilson on the representation that the money was required for paying for certain articles purchased for the firm from the Chief Engineer of S.S. Ural, but that he only paid Rs. 2,000 to the Chief Engineer and misappropriated the balance.

(2.) The arguments in appeal were mainly devoted to attacking the procedure followed by the Magistrate. Mr. Richmond s first complaint was that there was a misjoinder of charges. The facts on which this contention was based are these:

(3.) The original charge against the accused was that he received stolen property from the Chief Engineer. After the prosecution evidence was closed, an alternative charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, was added. The learned Counsel contended that a charge for receiving stolen properly should not have been joined with a charge for cheating. I fail to see the force of this objection. The request to Mr. Wilson for the payment of Rs. 3,000 was in furtherance of the purpose of concluding the purchase from the Chief Engineer. It was said that as the articles were handed over to the accused, the negotiations for the purchase had terminated and that the subsequent receipt of money which was misappropriated had, therefore, no connection with the receipt of the article.