| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1956 SLG 371 1956 SLD 371 = 1956 PLD 311 |
Supreme Court of India
Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1954 from Criminal Revision No. 1490 of 1951, dated 13th February 1953, decided on 25th November 1955.
Present: Venkatarama Ayyar and Imam, JJ
Ram Lal Anand Senior Advocate (Chandra Shan Advocate with him) for Appellant. K. B. Asthana arid C P. Lal Advocates for
Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 1954 from Criminal Revision No. 1490 of 1951, dated 13th February 1953, decided on 25th November 1955.
Present: Venkatarama Ayyar and Imam, JJ
Ram Lal Anand Senior Advocate (Chandra Shan Advocate with him) for Appellant. K. B. Asthana arid C P. Lal Advocates for
Respondent
LAXMI NARAIN KALRA-Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH--Respondent
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 420
P L D 1956 Supreme Court (Ind.) 311 Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 420-Cheque deposited as security-Not supported by credit in bank-Cheque returned by payee as unacceptable under Rules-On representation, cheque sent for encashment and dishonoured by the bank-Offence. A, whose tender was accepted, was required to deposit Rs. 4,000 by way of security under the Rules. A delivered a cheque for Rs. 4,000 while in fact there was only Rs. 5 to his credit in the bank. As the prescribed procedure required the deposit to be made only in cash or postal securities, the cheque was returned. Next day A's brother saw the Offer concerned and stated that A was out of station and that the cheque could be cashed. On this representation the cheque was sent for encashment but it was dishonoured. A was thereupon tried and convicted under section 420 of the Penal Code. Held, that conviction under section 420 of the Penal Code could not be sustained. As the cheque could not be accepted under the rules, there was no question of dishonest intention in delivering the cheque. In fact there was no cheating till the cheque was returned as unacceptable. Held further, that in absence of any evidence to show that A had authorised his brother to act on his behalf, A could not be held responsible for the representation made by his brother. . JUDGMENT VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J.-----This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad confirming the conviction of the appellant by the two Courts below on a charge under section 420, I. P. C. In response to a notice dated 4th November 1949, the District Development Officer, Etawah, inviting tenders for the supply of bricks in connection with a Flood Relief Housing. Scheme, the appellant made a tender which was accepted and he was required to deposit in accordance with the rules, a sum of Rs. 4,000 by way of security. Accordingly, on the 17th of. November, 1949, he delivered a cheque dated 1 6th November for Rs. 4,000 drawn on the Punjab National Bank Ltd., Kanpur, while in fact there was only a sum of Rs. 5 to his credit on that date. It…