Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of the respondent-accused Avinath Narayan Surwase by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur in R.C.C. No. 273 of 1986 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the accused represented to the complainant Avinath Jadhav and his friend Prakash Trimal that his brother was serving in the Railway Department and could secure them employment. The accused demanded Rs. 5000/- from the complainant, claiming it was for superior officials, and the complainant paid the amount on 8/8/1986. The accused then gave an order stating that the complainant and Prakash should join duties on 18/8/1986. However, the complainant did not get employment. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the complainant's testimony unreliable and the essential ingredients of cheating not proved. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the complainant's testimony was not credible, as he admitted in cross-examination that he had not paid the amount to the accused but to someone else. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused made a false representation with dishonest intention to induce the complainant to part with money. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Cheating - Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Ingredients of cheating - The prosecution must prove that the accused made a false representation with dishonest intention to induce the complainant to part with property. In this case, the complainant's testimony was found unreliable and the essential ingredients of deception and dishonest inducement were not established. (Paras 1-5)
B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - The appellate court should not lightly reverse an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and did not warrant interference. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused cheated the complainant under Section 420 IPC.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur is confirmed.
Law Points
- Cheating
- Section 420 IPC
- Deception
- Dishonest Inducement
- Acquittal
- Appeal against acquittal
- Credibility of witness
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 195
Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1991
Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the appellant - State
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against acquittal in a criminal case for cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Remedy Sought
The State of Maharashtra sought reversal of the acquittal of the accused and conviction for cheating.
Filing Reason
The State appealed against the judgment and order dated 22/11/1990 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur acquitting the accused for offence under Section 420 IPC.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur acquitted the accused on 22/11/1990.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused cheated the complainant under Section 420 IPC.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant-State argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite sufficient evidence.
The respondent-accused argued that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of cheating.
Ratio Decidendi
The prosecution must prove that the accused made a false representation with dishonest intention to induce the complainant to part with property. In this case, the complainant's testimony was unreliable and the essential ingredients of deception and dishonest inducement were not established. The trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, hence no interference warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
State has preferred this appeal against acquittal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur in R.C.C. No. 273 of 1986.
Prosecution case is that the complainant Avinath Jadhav and Prakash Trimal were friends and the accused was acquainted with the complainant and Prakash Trimal.
The accused made a representation to the complainant that his brother was serving in the Railway Department and that he could give him employment in the Railway Department.
The accused, therefore, demanded certain amount from the complainant and told him to give him Rs 5000/-.
He represented that this amount was to be given to the Superior Officials in Railway Department.
It is contended that accordingly complainant paid an amount of Rs 5000/- to the accused on 8/8/1986 and, thereafter, accused gave an order in which it was written that the complainant and Prakash Trimal should join their duties on 18/8/1986.
Procedural History
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solapur acquitted the accused in R.C.C. No. 273 of 1986 on 22/11/1990. The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which was heard and dismissed on 21/02/2005.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 420
