Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ashok Pundlik Wajge, filed a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.5.1998 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Achalpur in Regular Criminal Case No. 101 of 1987, which acquitted the respondents, Manohar Sitaram Ingle and Kumudini Sudam Ingle, of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant had originally filed a complaint against P. Patra (Managing Director), M. Chakravarti (Director), and the respondents (Manager and Divisional Manager) of Busy Land Development Corporation, but later deleted the names of Patra and Chakravarti. The complaint alleged that the corporation floated two schemes: one accepting recurring deposits and another providing loans for vehicle purchase under hire-purchase agreements. The appellant opened a recurring deposit account on 6.3.1986, depositing Rs. 10 per day, accumulating Rs. 2610. The respondents represented that if he made a 30% down payment for a motorcycle, they would provide a loan for the balance. The appellant made the down payment but did not receive delivery by 1.10.1986 as assured. Respondent No. 2 promised a refund if delivery was not made by 3.11.1986, but the respondents neither delivered the vehicle nor refunded the deposits, and closed the office. The appellant alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust. The trial court, after examining evidence, found that the loss could not be attributed to the respondents as they acted merely as agents of the corporation without any intention to deceive or defraud. The court acquitted them. The High Court, in appeal, considered the scope of interference in acquittal appeals and held that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse. The High Court noted that the appellant failed to prove dishonest intention at the time of the transaction, which is essential for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust - Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Acquittal - The appellant/complainant alleged that respondents, as Manager and Divisional Manager of a corporation, cheated him by not delivering a motorcycle or refunding deposits after he made down payment and recurring deposits. The trial court acquitted respondents, finding no criminal intent as they acted only as agents of the corporation. The High Court upheld the acquittal, holding that mere failure to fulfill a promise does not constitute cheating or criminal breach of trust without proof of dishonest intention at the inception. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - The High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not vitiated by any error of law. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents, acting as agents of a corporation, can be held guilty of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in the absence of criminal intent to deceive or defraud the complainant.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC.
Law Points
- Criminal breach of trust
- Cheating
- Acquittal
- Appeal against acquittal
- Criminal intent
- Agency
- Section 406 IPC
- Section 420 IPC
