Skip to main content

Intention to cheat must exist at the time of initial formation of contract

In Sri Uttam Deb vs The State Of Tripura, appeal was filed before the Tripura High Court against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence  by the lower court.

The High Court decided that the matter involved among others, the following questions :-

(i)  whether there is any legal evidence as to inducement?
(ii)   whether making of payment without any receipt or the agreement of high return can be believed in the course of human conduct?

The complaint was filed against the appellant claiming that he had fraudulently induced the accuser to invest money in a company UNIPAY 2 U which did not exist.

The High Court observed that in the statements of the victims were recorded by the police no single line would be available in the complaint that at any point of time, the petitioner had introduced that if he had invested the money in UNIPAY 2 U, that it will fetch high return in the form of interest. The victims have stated in the trial that he had inquired about the company but it revealed that there did not exist any such company in the name of UNIPAY 2 U, non-banking financial company. But in the complaint  has categorically stated that subsequently he went to the office of UNIPAY 2 U marketing private limited company and on his query he could know that the petitioner did not deposit his money which he had given to the petitioner for investment in UNIPAY 2 U. This kind of diametrically opposite statements has taken out the credibility of the victims.

The court was not inclined to believe that someone had been depositing money through an agent without asking for any receipt or without any agreement and decided that the story of making investment through the petitioner is visited by serious doubt and hence, the benefit would go to the petitioner.

The court observed that the accusers have embellished their statement to ensure the conviction of the petitioner by completely deviating from their statement, recorded by the investigating officer during the investigation. The investigating officer has categorically stated that the facts of inducement for making payment or demanding for money receipt or denying to pay back the money were never stated to him. Thus, those testimonies have become susceptible to doubt. Thus, the cumulative effect of such development is that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit as there is no legal evidence to show there existed dishonest intention from inception of the transaction or the delivery of money was made under inducement. 

The court decided that 'Cheating' by the petitioner has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Even, there is no element of mens rea. Referring to judgements of the Supreme Court  in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2009) 7 SCC 712 and Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336], the High Court observed that it has been clearly held by the apex court that fraudulent or dishonest intention must exist at the time of initial promise or formation of contract. Such fraudulent or dishonest inducement at the inception of transaction has not been proved by the prosecution to the hilt. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating.

Comments

  1. AlbertBerry28 May 2022 at 11:22

    I'm not sure why but this web site is loading incredibly slow for me. Is anyone else having this problem or is it a issue on my end? I'll check back later on and see if the problem still exists.usdt payment gateway api

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more