Decided on July 22,1960

Shib Chandra Bhattacharjee Appellant
STATE Respondents


- (1.) The Petitioner Shib Chandra Bhattacharjee was directed by a Subdivisional Magistrate, Kalna, to pay Rs. 50 as compensation under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as in his view the case under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, brought by him against the accused Adhir Mondal alias Ajit Mondal was false as well as frivolous and vexatious. The case of the Petitioner briefly was that he had a grocer's- shop at Monieswar and his brother Sridhar aged 16 used to help him in running the shop; that the accused Adhir Mondal came to the shop of the complainant and also to the complainant's house on some occasions and made a proposal that he would enter into a business transaction in rice with the Petitioner's shop, and that on the 28th Chaitra corresponding to April 12, 1957 when the Petitioner had to go home from the shop the accused accompanied him for some distance and then came back to the shop where the Petitioner's young brother Sridhar was in charge and told him that the Petitioner had directed Sridliar to give Rs. 162 in cash to the accused and also directed that Sridliar should give the sale proceeds of two mawnds of rice by selling the same to Kalo Garai. Sridhar thereupon gave a sum of Rs. 162 to the accused but got him to make an entry of the advance in account book of the shop. Further according to the prosecution case, Sridhar made over two mounds of rice to the accused for sale to Kalo Garai, and the accused took that rice to Kalo Garai's shop with the help of a labourer and came bank with the sale proceeds to the complainant's shop and after taking his meal 'there went away.
(2.) When the complainant Petitioner returned to the shop and learnt everything from Sridhar, he was angry with Sridhar and began to look for the accused. He lodged a First Information Report on April 24, 1957. The police in course of investigation arrested the accused and after an identification parade submitted a charge-sheet against the accused.
(3.) The accused pleaded not guilty and stated that the ease was a false case.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.