AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (3) TMI 530
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to them that within 15 days the State Bank of India, Rai Bareli was going to hold a prestigious Loan Distribution Function to disburse loans to farmers for the purchase of six tractors. He told them that he had prevailed upon the bank authorities to disburse such loans to farmers for the purchase of tractors manufactured by their Company only. For this purpose, he required three Swaraj-737 and three Swaraj-Sartaj tractors, saying that the case with regard to the sale of these six tractors, through the bank had already prepared and was ready with bank authorities and assured that they would not be sold in any other manner except through the bank at this function. The said two officials of M/s Punjab Tractors, namely; Mr. A.M. Sawhney and Mr. P.C. Jain, however, expressed their inability to supply any tractors to the petitioner until he had paid the sum of Rs. 87,000/- due from him. The petitioner promised that he would clear the said amount of Rs. 87,000/- by the end of December 1982 and expressed surprise that Messrs Punjab Tractor were willing to lose this opportunity of enhancing its reputation by selling six of its tractors to farmers in a prestigious function organized by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was consequently the case of the complainant-Company that the petitioner had acted with the dishonest intention of causing wrongful loss to it and with that motive in mind had made a false and dishonest representation regarding the sale of the tractors only through the State Bank of India and to persons to whom loans were disbursed. 2. The trial magistrate, after recording the preliminary evidence of Messrs Punjab Tractors, summoned the petitioner under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code by his order of June 15, 1983. The petitioner challenged this order in a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he sought quashing thereof. This petition was, however, dismissed on January 25, 1984. After the appearance of the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate at Kharar, M/s Panjab Tractors examined seven witnesses, namely; P.W. 1 Ashok Chander, the Secretary of the Company; P.W. 2 Morada Ram, Security Guard; P.W. 3 PC. Jain, the Accounts Officer, the transporter of the tractors P.W. 4 Kishan Sayal; P.W. 5 A.M. Sawhney, the Head of the Marketing Division of the Company, besides P.W. 6 U.C. Dubey, the Manager of the Bank of Baroda at Fatehpur and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The misrepresentation alleged was verbal and was said to have been made at Agra. Theproperties in respect of which the cheating was alleged to have been committed were delivered to the petitioner at Jaunpur, It was held that the deception alleged to have been practised was only by verbal representation, the deception practised at Agra could not confer jurisdiction upon the Agra courts in view of the language of Section 182 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). It was consequently held that the Agra courts had no jurisdiction and it was only the courts at Jaunpur which would take cognizance, of the offence. 6. Section 182 of the Code is a new provision brought on to the statute book by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Objects and Reasons which led to enactment of this provision mention the recommendations of the Law Commission in its Forty-first Report in this behalf where the Commission had commented : -- Controversial questions have frequently arisen in regard to the venue for the offence of cheating where the fraudulent or dishonest misrepresentation is made by post, telegram or long distance telephone and w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgment of the Supreme Court in K. Satwant Singh v. The State of Punjab A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 266 still holds the field and provides an apt precedent for repelling the objection to the jurisdiction of the court at Kharar as raised by the counsel for the petitioner. The mis-representation, in this case, had been made by the accused at Simla and the consequence thereof occurred at Lahore, as induced by the mis-representation, the delivery of property, that is, the money, was made by the accused at Lahore. It was consequently held that the accused could be tried either at Lahore or at Simla. Confronted with this authority, counsel for the petitioner was constrained to concede that if not rendered inapplicable by the provisions of Section 182 of the Code, it provided a complete answer to his objection to the jurisdiction of the court at Kharar There is clearly no warrant for holding that the law laid down in this case is in any manner been affected by the enactment of Section 182 of the Code. 8. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that no offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code could be said to have been committed in view of the letters exhi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the amount had been paid by draft to the Cement Company and not to the accused and nor was any offence committed under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as the accused were in the business of supplying cement. It was in dealing with this situation that the Court observed that an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was in a way. antithesis of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as in the case of criminal mis-appropriation of property, the property is voluntarily kept in custody by the accused, whereas cheating takes place when the accused, by deceitful means, induces the complainant to part with the property. A plain reading of this authority would show that provides no warrant or support for the contention that merely because a complaint mentions the alleged offences committed by the accused to be under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian penal Code, neither can be said to have been committed. As mentioned earlier, the complaint here, as also the evidence led, clearly bring out the false representation made by the petitioner, which led the Company to part with the tractors. The requisite ingredients of the offence under section 420 of the Indian....