BASHIRBHAI MOHAMEDBHAI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY
LAWS(SC)-1960-4-33
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on April 19,1960

BASHIRBHAI MOHAMEDBHAI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BOMBAY Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

APARAJITA NATH VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2006-5-63] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KOTHARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2014-6-32] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDER KUMAR SINGLA VS. BALDEV KRISHAN SINGLA [LAWS(SC)-2004-2-133] [REFERRED]
SRIDHAR VS. STATE REP. BY SPECIAL SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2013-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-247] [REFERRED TO]
SURYA PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-285] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYNATARAJ VS. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-90] [REFERRED TO]
BHANJIBHAI ANANDBHAI CHAVDA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-2-211] [REFERRED TO]
NISHANT BIPINBHAI TRIVEDI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-3-532] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sarkar, J. - (1.)The appellant and two others were convicted by a Magistrate under S. 420 read with Ss. 511 and 34 of the I. P. C., and each was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 months and a fine of Rs. 500 and in default of payment, a further period of imprisonment for four months. On appeal the accused persons were acquitted by a Sessions Judge. The State then appealed to the High Court at Bombay and the High Court set aside the order of acquittal and restored the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Accused No. 1 alone has appealed against the order of the High Court to this Court.
(2.)The three accused persons approached one Ramanlal and the third accused told Ramanlal that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were proficient in duplicating currency notes and they were prepared to do it for Ramanlal who should take advantage of the offer. The third accused then asked Ramanlal to think over the matter and promised to come again, Ramanlal later mentioned this matter to his friend Champaklal, the complainant and the two decided to tap the accused persons disbelieving their (professed) power to duplicate notes. The third accused again can as promised and met Ramanlal and Champaklal. Champaklal promised to find currency notes for Rs. 20,000 for duplicating and a date was fixed when it was to be done. Thereafter Ramanlal and Champaklal informed the police. The police hid themselves in the house of Ramanlal where it had been fixed with the accused that the duplicating would be done. The three accuses arrived duly. The second accused spread bottles, blank papers etc., on a carpet and the first accused, the appellant, asked Champaklal to produce the currency notes. Champaklal who was carrying a bag supposed to contain the promised currency notes worth Rs. 20,000 took out two currency notes of Rs. 100 each from the bag and gave them to the appellant. As soon as the appellant had taken the money, Champaklal gave the prearranged signal and the police came into the room and arrested all the accused persons. They were thereafter prosecuted for the offence of an attempt to cheat upon a complaint lodged by Champaklal with the result already mentioned.
(3.)Three points were argued by the learned advocate for the appellant. First it was said that the charge was for an attempt to cheat Champaklal but there was no evidence to show that any representation had been made by anyone to Champaklal. The Courts below however found that such a representation had been made and we think that the finding is clearly supported by the evidence on record.
;


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