Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420, 468, 465, 471 – Petitioner failed to repay the loan obtained to purchase a vehicle – Allegation that petitioner forged documents and sold the vehicle to one S – FIR registered – Trial Court found petitioner guilty of offences u/ss.406, 468, 465, 420, and 471 of IPC – Criminal Appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court – Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed – Correctness: Held: The accused has not denied availment of the loan from the Company and the subsequent sale of the vehicle made in favour of S – The petitioner has taken the stand that the documents are genuine and not forged and/or fabricated, when the entire evidence, both oral as well as documentary, clearly reveal to the contrary – There is no record, whatsoever, forthcoming to show that the accused had repaid the loan – Had the petitioner actually paid back the loan, it could have been demonstrated by bringing before the Courts documents to indicate that money was transferred from his account/source to the financier-Company – This has not been done – For the purposes of establishing the petitioner’s guilt, there was sufficient and reliable material, which rightly the Courts below have believed and relied upon – Thus, no infirmity in the same having been found, the conviction needs no interference – In the interest of justice, sentenced reduced to one year and six months’ simple imprisonment. [Paras 12, 18, 19] Penal Code, 1860 – s.406 and s.420 – Difference between criminal breach of trust and cheating – Discussed. Penal Code, 1860 – s.406 and s.420 – Whether the petitioner, in the instant case, can be convicted both u/ss.406 and s.420 of IPC:
Held: On an overall conspectus of the factual aspects juxtaposed with the evidence on record, as regards fulfilment of the ingredients of ss.406 and 420 of the IPC, at first sight, it may appear that the petitioner cannot be convicted both u/ss.406 and 420 of the IPC, but, in the present case, on a proper consideration of the issue in its entirety, there is a fine distinction inasmuch as, there are two different persons against whom the petitioner has committed the respective offences under the Sections supra – Evidently the petitioner is guilty of offence committed against the Company punishable u/s.406 of the IPC and also, of offence committed against M (PW4 and husband of purchaser S) punishable u/s.420 of the IPC. [Para 21]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.