G. ANJI Vs. SUNANDA KAR @ GORA BABU
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Sunanda Kar @ Gora Babu
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K. Mohanti, J. -
(1.) THIS appeal is directed against an order of Shri A.C. Sarangi, Judicial Magistrate. First Class, Cuttack acquitting the Respondent of the charge under Section 420 Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THE Appellant as complainant filed a complaint petition alleging that the Respondent and his mother Mrs. Ramala Kar were heavily indebted to him and when he pressed for payment of his dues the Respondent issued a crossed cheque No. CTK 25/205 -185 dated 30 -4 -1967 for a sum of Rs. 9.500/ - on the United Bank of India Limited, Cuttack. The Appellant endorsed the cheque in favour of Shri M.K.C. Rao, Advocate (P.W. 3) who sent the cheque for encashment through the State Bank of India, Cuttack thrice and on each occasion it was dishonoured with the endorsement "Full cover not received". It was alleged that the Respondent knew that he had no bank balance sufficient to cover the cheque and he issued the cheque with the dishonest motive of silencing the Appellant when he demanded payment of his due, Upon these allegations the Respondent was summoned to stand his trial under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. The Respondent admitted to have issued the cheque and contended that though he knew that on the date of the issue of the cheque he had no sufficient deposit yet he issued the cheque as he expected some payment to him by the Small Scale Industries Corporation which he would have credited to the Bank to covet the cheque.
In course of the trial, the Appellant led evidence to show that on receipt of the cheque he had returned the original handnotes to the Respondent and contended that he was induced to do so by the issue of the cheque. This allegation was denied by the Respondent.
(3.) ON a consideration of the evidence led by both the parties the learned Magistrate came to the following findings.
(1) The Appellant failed to prove that he was induced to deliver the handnotes on receipt of the cheque.
(2) The element of deception was wanting.
(3) The fact of making over the handnotes by the
Appellant to the Respondent was doubtful.
Upon these findings the Respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 420. Indian Penal Code.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.