46,696 12 9 as on the 4th May 1951, the overdraft limit being Rs.
The Appellant agreed to purchase from the companyplainant Dulichand Kheria 25 ingots of tin on the 5th May 1951.
These 25 ingots were to be delivered by the companyplainant at the guddi of the Appellant and it was agreed that the price which was fixed at the rate of Rs.
It was alleged that the Appellant went of his own accord to the companyplainant 7 or 8 days after the transaction in order to settle the money to be paid in view of the fluctuations in the price of tin in the market and was arrested at the place of the companyplainant while he was thus negotiating for a settlement.
The companyplainant had in his stock 14 ingots only and purchased 11 ingots from the firm of M. Golam Ali Abdul Hossain.
The High Court dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence passed upon the Appellant by the Additional Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.
and amounted to Rs.
The defence put up was that the Appellant had numberintention whatever to swindle the companyplainant, that the transaction was on credit and that the story of the promise to pay in cash was introduced by the companyplainant to give a criminal companyplexion to the case.
The Additional Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta held that the charge against the Appellant was proved and companyvicted him and sentenced him as above.
in about August 1951.
It transpired in the evidence that the Appellant had an overdraft account with the Bank of Bankura Ltd. in which account he had overdrawn to the extent of Rs.
in about April 1951 to Rs.
He therefore filed on the 11th May 1951 his companyplaint in the Court of the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta charging the Appellant with having companymitted an offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
540/ per cwt.
The Appellant went out and did number return to the Guddi and the Jamadar ultimately returned to the companyplainant and reported that numberpayment was made though the ingots were taken delivery of by the Appellant.
The Appellant took delivery of the ingots but kept the Jamadar awaiting and did number pay the price to him.
50,000/ .
The Jamadar waited for a long time.
The companyplainant who was induced to part with these 25 ingots of tin by the Appellants promise to pay cash against delivery realised that he was cheated.
17,324/12/6 was to be paid by the Appellant against delivery.
Even between the 3rd May 1951 and the 5th May 1951 the two dates when the negotiations for the transaction took place between the parties and the companytract was actually entered into, the market declined from Rs.
The Appellant took an appeal to the High Court against this companyviction and sentence passed upon him.
The Jamadar of the companyplainant went to the Guddi of the Appellant.
On the 5th May 1951 the Appellant hypothecated with the bank 70 ingots of tin as additional companyer against the overdraft account.
778 per cwt.
Bhagwati, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta upholding the companyviction of the Appellant under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment passed upon him by the Additional Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta.
