HUKUM SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case which have given rise to this application for revision are that, on 7 August 1928, Mt. Champavati and one Bahori Lal instituted a complaint under Secs.417 and 406, I.P.C., in the Court of a Special Magistrate with second class powers. The District Magistrate of Etah transferred the case to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Kasganj. The latter, in his turn, transferred the case to Mr. Saved Ghayoor Ahmad, Magistrate, First Class.

(2.) Mt. Champavati is the widow of a predeceased brother of Bahori Lal. Both her husband and Bahori Lal were in the railway service. After the death of her husband, Mt. Champavati received a considerable sum of money from the railway authorities on account of the provident fund of her deceased husband. Bahori Lal also received a large sum of money from the railway on his own account as his share of the provident fund. It is common ground that Mt. Champavati and Bahori Lal occupied the same house and Bahori Lal may well be taken to be the natural protector of Mt. Champavati and her minor son. It was alleged that by trickery and by a pretence of friendship, Hukam Singh, the applicant, insinuated himself into the confidence of Mt. Champavati and Bahori Lal in various ways. Hukam Singh persuaded Mt. Champavati to believe that there was a danger of her cash and jewellery being appropriated by Bahori Lal and that it would be safer and more prudent if she allowed Hukam Singh to take charge of her cash and jewellery and keep them in deposit for her. The unsuspecting widow believed Hukam Singh and put him into possession of ornaments, worth Rs. 350 and cash Rs. 1,100. The complaint of Mt. Champavati against Hukam Singh was limited to these two items which concerned her and which had nothing to do with Bahori Lal. She charged Hukam Singh with cheating and criminal breach of trust with reference to the two items indicated above.

(3.) In the same petition of complaint, dated 7 August 1928, Bahori Lal charged Hukam Singh with cheating and criminal breach of trust with reference to large sums of money aggregating to Rs. 2,500. The money belonged to Bahori Lal. Mt. Champavati had no share in this money. The person who had been imposed upon with reference to this was Bahori Lal and not Mt. Champavati. The transactions which formed the basis of the complaint of Mt. Champavati were essentially different from those which afforded a cause of action to Bahori Lal.