Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

I told vakil there was attachment by the Court.

This endorsement is recorded on 22nd April, 1970, that is to say, three years after the date of the sale. It is not known to which vakil the appellant was making reference in this manner. Probably, it might be to the advocate who was actually defending him in this case. If the attachment had been effected after the date of the sale and if a complaint had been filed against the accused on the ground that he had fraudulently suppressed the fact of attachment, it is conceivable that he should have communicated the information to the advocate who was defending him in the criminal case that there was a subsequent attachment by the civil Court. There is nothing in the answer recorded by the Magistrate to show that the appellant admitted or intended to admit that there was a subsisting attachment on the date he effected the sale. It is, therefore, idle for the prosecution to rely upon some unsigned statement of the appellant, which is ambiguous in its meaning and which cannot relieve the prosecution of the burden of establishing the most important ingredient in the offence of cheating, namely, that, on the date the appellant executed the sale, there was a subsisting attachment in respect of the property, that the appellant was aware of that attachment and that he fraudulently suppressed the factum of the attachment from the knowledge of his vendee. In the absence of proof of this most important ingredient, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant have to be set aside and I acquit the accuesd-appellant of the offence Under Section 420, Indian Penal Code, direct him to be set at liberty forthwith, and direct his bail bond to be cancelled. The fine, if collected, will be refunded to the appellant.