MOBARIK ALI AHMED Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY
LAWS(SC)-1957-9-9
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
September 06,1957
MOBARIK ALI AHMED
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BOMBAY
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
LMTIAZ ALI VS. NASIM AHMED [LAWS(DLH)-1986-9-14] [REFERRED]MAHABIR PRASAD SHARMA VS. KEDAR NATH PANDEY [LAWS(CAL)-1994-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
P PREM KUMAR VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMIJI SUGAR MILLS CO LTD VS. BANWARI LAL TANDON [LAWS(ALL)-1959-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYALAXMI SHETTY VS. KOCHU SHETTY [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-318] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRAKANT JHA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-133] [REFERRED TO]
KIRLOSKAR BROS LTD VS. ENGINEERING MACHINERY MARTNARSINGHPURM P [LAWS(MPH)-1981-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
MASSIMILANO LATORRE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2012-5-331] [REFERRED TO]
DEVI SHANKAR VS. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER BARAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1984-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN RAI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1998-4-76] [REFERRED TO]
REGU MAHESWARA RAO VS. VYRICHERLA KISHORE CHANDRA SURAYANARAYANA DEO [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-119] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. BRIJ MOHAN [LAWS(DLH)-1984-2-59] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANTBHAI CHATURBHAI NAI & ORS. VS. STATE OF GUJRAT & ANR. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-5-79] [REFERRED TO]
LAISANGBAM BIMOL SINGH VS. KONSAM BABULEN SINGH [LAWS(GAU)-1999-2-38] [REFERRED TO]
NATURAL SUGAR AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD VS. RAZZAK HAZI GAFFAR [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-141] [REFERRED TO]
EUGENE PINTO VS. RITA CYNTHIA PINTO [LAWS(BOM)-2008-9-241] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1972-7-2] [REFERRED]
SMT. VIJAYALAXMI SHETTY VS. MR. KOCHU SHETTY [LAWS(KAR)-2020-11-7] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ LAL & OTHERS VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2018-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. AJAI BNTAIL [LAWS(HPH)-1991-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
GULZAR ALI RAJ MOHAMMAD VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-1997-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
PARVEEN BHATIA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2002-5-122] [REFERRED TO]
REPUBLIC OF ITALY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2013-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
S.P.S. RATHORE VS. C.B.I. & ANR. [LAWS(SC)-2016-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
J D AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-1982-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
A K KHOSLA VS. T S VENKATESAN [LAWS(CAL)-1991-9-35] [REFERRED TO]
PINTU GHOSH VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS VS. SHANTI LAL LAXMI CHAND MODI [LAWS(DLH)-1971-5-26] [REFERRED]
U P STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD VS. MAHALCHAND MOTILAL KOTHARI [LAWS(GAU)-1998-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK MOHANLAL PODDAR VS. PAWAN RATNANLAL CHAMELIA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-6-68] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESAN VS. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATRAMPALLI POLICE STATION [LAWS(MAD)-2020-1-537] [REFERRED TO]
RAVI VS. S I OF POLICE [LAWS(KER)-1988-12-13] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. JUGAL KISHORE MORE [LAWS(SC)-1969-1-22] [REFERRED]
SAILA BEHARI CHATTERJEE VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1965-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1995-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB [LAWS(BOM)-2011-2-190] [REFERRED TO]
MAQSOOD YUSUF MERCHANT VS. UOI THRU THE SECRETARY [LAWS(DLH)-2008-5-88] [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD VS. P SUBHASH CHANDRA REDDY [LAWS(APH)-2003-3-117] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SWARUP VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1968-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SAROOP RAIZADA VS. DR. MADAN MOHAN MISRA [LAWS(ALL)-1974-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANT OMKARNATH THAKRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-2-489] [REFERRED TO]
SALEEM UD DIN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1971-4-15] [REFERRED]
PRAKASH DEVENDRA NAVGHARE VS. SADHANA D. CHACHAD [LAWS(BOM)-2025-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
BANSILAL MADANLAL VS. EAST BENGAL RIVER STEAM SERVICE [LAWS(CAL)-1971-1-35] [REFERRED]
MOHAMMED YUSUF VS. D [LAWS(BOM)-1961-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
FIROZ MEHARUDDIN VS. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER [LAWS(MPH)-1960-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
C.G. RAVEENDRAN AND ORS. VS. C.G. GOPI AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-7-81] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK JAMNA DASS THAKKAR VS. SHRI VARINDER KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-1988-9-55] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWAR SINGH VS. KUNDAN KANWAR [LAWS(RAJ)-1984-8-5] [REFERRED TO]
A V MOHAN RAO VS. M KRISHAN RAO [LAWS(SC)-2002-7-13] [REFERRED]
OM PRAKASH SINGHANIA VS. NAURATAN SINGH DUDHARIA [LAWS(PAT)-1979-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
MANMOHAN VS. BALDEV RAJ [LAWS(DLH)-2013-11-100] [REFERRED TO]
PUNIT PRUTI VS. STATE OF GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-163] [REFERRED TO]
A V MOHAN RAO VS. M KISHAN RAO [LAWS(APH)-2000-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAMMAD NAZAHARUL HAQUE VS. B BAGCHI I P J P [LAWS(CAL)-1972-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
HAFIZ ABDUL BASIT VS. HAFIZ MOHAMMAD SAID [LAWS(DLH)-1972-10-10] [REFERRED]
LEADER CAPITAL SERVICES INDIA PVT LTD VS. STATION HOUSE OFFICER BEGUMPET P S [LAWS(APH)-2005-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
VALLURI RAMCHANDRA RAO VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2006-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KADAR SALEH MOHOMED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1963-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA PRANJIVAN DAVE VS. CHUNILAL HINDUJI OSWAL [LAWS(BOM)-1983-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
A T GOOYEE ENTERPRISES VS. NAND LAL RATHI [LAWS(CAL)-2020-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
PAULOSE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2020-8-277] [REFERRED TO]
VEERARAJU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2020-2-175] [REFERRED TO]
HARDEO GUJAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1988-7-25] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL MAZID VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1988-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN P WAG VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1997-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KISHAN VS. RADHA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-5-217] [REFERRED TO]
BADRI NARAIN SINGH VS. KAMDEO PRASAD SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1959-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
HOARE MILLER AND CO LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1960-12-10] [REFERRED TO]
SNOW WHITE FOOD PRODUCT PVT LTD VS. SOHANLAL BAGLA [LAWS(CAL)-1964-1-6] [REFERRED TO]
MD. RASHID VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-342] [REFERRED TO]
C H SHAH VS. S S MALPATHAK [LAWS(BOM)-1971-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
BRATINDRANATH BANERJEE VS. HITEN P DALAL [LAWS(BOM)-1993-4-60] [REFERRED TO]
S SHANKARMANI VS. NIBAR RANJAN PARIDA [LAWS(ORI)-1989-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
A G ABRAHAM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1987-8-15] [REFERRED TO]
ISSAC NADAR AND ANR. VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1987-8-69] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR VISHAVJIT SINGH VS. ATAMDEV SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1991-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH CHANDRA AJMERA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1984-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR BAHAL VS. FOOD CORPN OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1989-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY AGGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1993-5-55] [RELIED ON]
ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF DEMOCRATIC VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2007-11-16] [REFERRED TO]
COMMANDER V S BATRA VS. CHIEF OF THE NAVAL STAFF [LAWS(DLH)-1998-7-1] [REFERRED]
K CHANDRASEKHAR RAO VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-9-30] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN TRIPATHI VS. THE STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-2-164] [REFERRED TO]
BANI ROY CHOWDHURY VS. COMPETENT AUTHORITY INSPECTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACQUISITION RANGE II [LAWS(CAL)-1976-6-3] [REFERRED TO]
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA VS. R.K. AGENCIES LIMITED [LAWS(CAL)-2014-7-60] [REFERRED TO]
PHANIDHAR KALITA VS. SARASWATI DEVI [LAWS(GAU)-2007-3-16] [REFERRED TO]
MANIKRAJ DEVRAJ MOHARKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1997-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANT S/O OMKARNATH THAKRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2009-1-246] [REFERRED]
MOHAMMAD AKBAR S/O MOHAMMAD RASHID VS. ASHOK SAHU S/O PURUSHOTTAM SAHU [LAWS(CHH)-2016-5-24] [REFERRED]
SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1985-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
R T ARASU VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-1999-5-135] [REFERRED TO]
BRATINDRANATH BANERJEE DIRECTOR STANDARD CHARTERED BANK VS. HITEN P DALAL [LAWS(BOM)-1993-4-27] [REFERRED TO]
K KUPPUSWAMI PILLAI VS. K NATARAJAN [LAWS(MAD)-1992-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
VINESH BHAGWAN DARIANANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2005-10-34] [REFERRED TO]
JUSTUS VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-1987-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
NASIR AHMED VS. CHIEF COMMISSIONER DELHI [LAWS(P&H)-1958-9-21] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHAND GUPTA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2002-2-36] [REFERRED TO]
LEE KUN HEE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
DEBASISH ROY CHOWDHURY VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1994-4-7] [REFERRED TO]
GOLAM RASUL VS. SUPDT OF POLICE [LAWS(CAL)-1964-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY SINGH RANA VS. ICICI BANK LTD. [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-412] [REFERRED TO]
SARDUL SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1966-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL LATIF VS. MUSTT. HAZERA KHATUN & ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2012-3-117] [REFERRED TO]
NUNNA VENKATESWARA RAO VS. TOTA VENKATESHWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-2007-2-97] [REFRRED TO]
ANIL KUMAR VS. AJAI BUTAIL [LAWS(HPH)-1991-10-2] [REFERRED TO]
K RAGHU VS. S RAJENDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(KER)-2002-9-70] [REFERRED TO]
SRI SITA RAMACHANDRA MAHAPRABHU VS. MADANO MAHARANA [LAWS(ORI)-1968-6-2] [REFERRED TO]
DHRUVDEO MISHRA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1989-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is an appeal by special leave. The appellant before us was convicted by the learned Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, Esplanade, Bombay, for the offence of cheating under S.420 read with S.34 of the Indian Penal Code on three counts of cheating viz. the first relating to a sum of Rs. 2,30,000 and the third relating to a sum of Rs. 2,36,900.
He was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 on the first count, to twenty-two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 on the second count, and two months rigorous imprisonment on the third count. It was directed that the substantive sentences only on the second and third counts are to run concurrently.
(2.)The prosecution was initiated on a private complaint filed by one Luis Antonio Correa on June 30, 1952, against four persons of whom the appellant was designated therein as the first accused and one Santaram as the fourth accused and two other persons A. A. Rowji and S. A. Rowji, as second and third accused respectively. Bailable warrants were issued against all the four by the learned Magistrate but it appears that warrants could not be executed against accused 2,3 and 4.
They were reported as absconding. The trial was accordingly separated as against them and proceeded only as against (the first accused) the appellant herein. The convictions and sentences have been confirmed on appeal by the High Court at Bombay.
(3.)The complainant is a business-man from Goa and was the Director of a firm in Goa which was trading in the name of Colonial Limitada doing business in import and export. At the relevant time there was severe scarcity of rice in Goa. The complainant was accordingly anxious to import rice urgently into Goa. He got into touch with a friend of his by name Rosario Carvalho in Bombay who was doing business as a Commission Agent.
Carvalho in his turn got into touch with one Jasawalla who was also doing business of Commission Agent at Bombay in the name of Universal Supply Corporation. The Jasawalla was previously in correspondence with the appellant about business in rice. The appellant was at the time in Karachi and was doing business in the name of Atlas Industrial and Trading Corporation and also in the name of Ifthiar Ahmed and Co. The telegraphic address of the complainant was Colodingco and that of the appellant was Ifthy.
As a result of exchange of telegrams, letters and telephone messages between Jasawalla and the appellant on one side, and Jasawalla and the complainant on the other, followed up by direct contacts between the appellant and the complainant through telephone, telegrams and letters, a contract was brought about for purchase, by the complainant from the appellant, of 1,200 tone of rice at the rate of 51 per ton, to be shipped from Karachi to Goa.
The contract appears originally to have been for payment of the price in sterling at Karachi. But it is the prosecution case (which has been accepted by both the courts below) that a subsequent arrangement was arrived at between the parties by which the payment was to be made in Bombay in Indian Currency, in view of the difficulties experienced in opening a letter of credit in a Bank at Karachi through the Portuguese Bank at Goa.
It is also the prosecution case, which has been accepted, that the understanding was that 25% of the price was to be paid as advance by the complainant to Jasawalla as the agent of the appellant for this purpose and that on receiving intimation thereof the appellant was to ship the rice and that the balance of the purchase money was to be paid on presentation of the shipping documents. It appears that at a later stage the quantity of rice to be supplied was raised to 2,000 tons and advance to be paid to 50% of the total stipulated price.
It is also the prosecution case that the appellant represented at various stages, by telephone talks, telegrams and letters, to Jasawalla as well as to the complainant directly that he had adequate stock of rice and that he had reserved shipping space in certain steamers which were about to leave for Goa and that he was in a position to ship the rice on being satisfied that the requisite advance was paid.
It is in evidence that on receiving such assurances, the complainant paid moneys as shown below to Jasawalla and obtained receipts from him, purporting to be the agent of the appellant.
1.On July 23, 1951 ... Rs. 81,000/-
2.On July 28, 1951 ... 2,30,000/-
3.On July 29, 1951 ... Rs. 2,36,900/-
All these amounts are held to have been received by the appellant in due course. It is admitted, however, that no rice was in fact shipped to the complainant and the amounts have not been returned back to the complaint. The defence of the appellant is to the effect that the amounts were not in fact paid to any person who was his agent and not in fact received by him at all and that he was unable to supply the rice as the complaint did not comply with the terms of the contract by opening a letter of credit at Karachi or paying him in Pakistani currency.
This defence has not been accepted and the appellant has been found guilty as charged by the courts below. He was therefore convicted and sentenced as above stated.
He was sentenced by the learned Magistrate to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 on the first count, to twenty-two months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 on the second count, and two months rigorous imprisonment on the third count. It was directed that the substantive sentences only on the second and third counts are to run concurrently.
(2.)The prosecution was initiated on a private complaint filed by one Luis Antonio Correa on June 30, 1952, against four persons of whom the appellant was designated therein as the first accused and one Santaram as the fourth accused and two other persons A. A. Rowji and S. A. Rowji, as second and third accused respectively. Bailable warrants were issued against all the four by the learned Magistrate but it appears that warrants could not be executed against accused 2,3 and 4.
They were reported as absconding. The trial was accordingly separated as against them and proceeded only as against (the first accused) the appellant herein. The convictions and sentences have been confirmed on appeal by the High Court at Bombay.
(3.)The complainant is a business-man from Goa and was the Director of a firm in Goa which was trading in the name of Colonial Limitada doing business in import and export. At the relevant time there was severe scarcity of rice in Goa. The complainant was accordingly anxious to import rice urgently into Goa. He got into touch with a friend of his by name Rosario Carvalho in Bombay who was doing business as a Commission Agent.
Carvalho in his turn got into touch with one Jasawalla who was also doing business of Commission Agent at Bombay in the name of Universal Supply Corporation. The Jasawalla was previously in correspondence with the appellant about business in rice. The appellant was at the time in Karachi and was doing business in the name of Atlas Industrial and Trading Corporation and also in the name of Ifthiar Ahmed and Co. The telegraphic address of the complainant was Colodingco and that of the appellant was Ifthy.
As a result of exchange of telegrams, letters and telephone messages between Jasawalla and the appellant on one side, and Jasawalla and the complainant on the other, followed up by direct contacts between the appellant and the complainant through telephone, telegrams and letters, a contract was brought about for purchase, by the complainant from the appellant, of 1,200 tone of rice at the rate of 51 per ton, to be shipped from Karachi to Goa.
The contract appears originally to have been for payment of the price in sterling at Karachi. But it is the prosecution case (which has been accepted by both the courts below) that a subsequent arrangement was arrived at between the parties by which the payment was to be made in Bombay in Indian Currency, in view of the difficulties experienced in opening a letter of credit in a Bank at Karachi through the Portuguese Bank at Goa.
It is also the prosecution case, which has been accepted, that the understanding was that 25% of the price was to be paid as advance by the complainant to Jasawalla as the agent of the appellant for this purpose and that on receiving intimation thereof the appellant was to ship the rice and that the balance of the purchase money was to be paid on presentation of the shipping documents. It appears that at a later stage the quantity of rice to be supplied was raised to 2,000 tons and advance to be paid to 50% of the total stipulated price.
It is also the prosecution case that the appellant represented at various stages, by telephone talks, telegrams and letters, to Jasawalla as well as to the complainant directly that he had adequate stock of rice and that he had reserved shipping space in certain steamers which were about to leave for Goa and that he was in a position to ship the rice on being satisfied that the requisite advance was paid.
It is in evidence that on receiving such assurances, the complainant paid moneys as shown below to Jasawalla and obtained receipts from him, purporting to be the agent of the appellant.
1.On July 23, 1951 ... Rs. 81,000/-
2.On July 28, 1951 ... 2,30,000/-
3.On July 29, 1951 ... Rs. 2,36,900/-
All these amounts are held to have been received by the appellant in due course. It is admitted, however, that no rice was in fact shipped to the complainant and the amounts have not been returned back to the complaint. The defence of the appellant is to the effect that the amounts were not in fact paid to any person who was his agent and not in fact received by him at all and that he was unable to supply the rice as the complaint did not comply with the terms of the contract by opening a letter of credit at Karachi or paying him in Pakistani currency.
This defence has not been accepted and the appellant has been found guilty as charged by the courts below. He was therefore convicted and sentenced as above stated.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.