Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.01 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 253 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Parashram Bhika on 15 December, 1932
21. As regards the principles which should govern the action of the Sessions Judge under Section 436 of the Code, I have nothing to add to, or subtract from, what is stated in Emperor v. Parashram Bhika 143 Ind. Cas. 289 : 35 Bom. L.R. 245 : A.I.R. 1933 Bom. 158 : Ind. Rul. (1933) Bom. 266 : 34 Cr. L.J. 564 : (1933) Cr. Cas. 470 : 57 B. 430. But everything I stated in that case was stated on the assumption that the Magistrate had considered all the evidence and had also applied his mind to all the material' issues in the case. The only question here which has caused me any difficulty is whether this particular aspect of the case to which I have just referred, namely, the representations alleged to have been made by some of the accused about the capital and about the time when the loans would be received, has been properly considered by the learned Magistrate. He has referred in his order to an admission by the Police Prosecutor that there was not clear and sufficient evidence to bring home the offence of cheating to the accused. This, I may say, appears to me somewhat incomprehensible. The only way in which one could say that there might be the offence of conspiracy to cheat, although there was no cheating established, is if the intention to cheat was present but had not been given effect to either because the Police raid ended, the activities of the company so quickly or because the representations made by the accused, though intended to deceive, had not in fact deceived anybody. I think there is something to be said for each of those propositions as my learned brother has pointed out. But the Magistrate does not seem to have attached importance to that aspect of the case. The view lie seems to have taken was that the accused honestly believed those representations to be true. However that may be (in view of the exhaustive judgment of my learned brother I do not desire to go into details), it is sufficiently clear that the Magistrate has considered the evidence on this point as well as on the other points in the case, and I think it would be impossible to say that there is any lacuna in the case or that any material issue has not been explored. That being so, I consider that it was not a case for interference under Section 436.