Reazuddin vs Emperor

James, J.—The petitioner who was the lessee of a garden at Muzaffarpur containing mangoes and leechis, negotiated with the complainant for a sub-lease of it. The terms adopted by the parties were that the complainant was to pay Rs. 100 to the accused; he was thenceforth to pay the rent which the accused had undertaken to pay, and to take the produce of the trees. The money was paid on the 25th December to the accused, who on the following 6th of February presented the sub-lease for registration. In March the complainant tried to obtain the chalan to enable him to pay the rent to the Military Engineering Department; but the accused paid the rent and the complainant later found that he had actually disposed of the fruit in the garden for something over Rs. 500.

He was convicted of cheating by an Honorary Magistrate of Dinapore and his appeal was summarily dismissed by the Sessions Judge of Patna.

Mr. S.K. Mitter on behalf of the petitioner argues that the conviction is bad, because there is no finding that at the time when the accused obtained the sum of Rs. 100 he intended to prevent the complainant from obtaining possession of the garden. On behalf of the complainant it is argued that his intention should be inferred from his conduct; he did actually prevent the complainant from entering into possession, so that it should be inferred that it was with this intention that he entered into the contract. The finding of the trial Court is that the accused was trying to get out of a bad bargain, since he sold the fruit for a much larger sum. This is certainly not a finding that from the beginning the accused had the intention of defrauding the complainant.

The point was not discussed by the learned Sessions Judge.

The conviction cannot be sustained on the finding of the trial Court; and it does not appear that the materials on the record afford justification for a finding that the intention of the petitioner in December 1932 was to cheat the complainant. If that had been his intention in December 1932, be would not have got the sub-lease registered on the 6th of February. It is in March that we see the first indication of an intention to defraud the plaintiff when the difficulty over the chalan first occurred.

By that time it must have been evident that the mango and leechi crop was going to be an exceptionally good one as the complainant says it was. Thus the motive appears for the first time in February or March. It does not on the face of it appear that any such motive could have existed in December, so that it is on the face of it more likely, that the intention to defraud was first conceived when it began to appear that the accused might have made a better bargain.

I would not like to say that he did not commit any offence by taking the fruit and selling it after he had transferred his rights in it to the complainant; but that is not the offence with which be is charged.

The application must be allowed. The accused must be acquitted and discharged from his bail. The fine, if paid, will be refunded.