Emperor vs Govinda Babaji Babde

Heaton, J.—The Additional Sessions Judge of Poona has referred this case to us. It seems that a creditor was convicted and sentenced u/s 67 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists'' Relief Act for not giving a receipt as required by Section 64. The Additional Sessions Judge was under the impression that Section 64 did not apply to the case, because the only payment in respect of which he found it proved that a receipt was not given, was the delivery of two bullocks, whereas the section speaks of money. The definition of money, however, in the Act itself says that money shall be deemed to include agricultural produce, implements, and stock. Under the head of Stock it would necessarily include cattle. The conviction, therefore, so far as the law goes, is perfectly correct. Nor do we see any good reason to induce us to interfere with the conviction in so far as it is based on evidence. But it seems to us that the fine circumstances is somewhat excessive and we reduce it Rs. 15 The difference between the Rs. 15 and Rs. 40, paid, should be refunded.