4,000/ by way of security.
4,000/ drawn on the Punjab National Bank Ltd., Kanpur, while in fact there was only a sum of Rs.
5 to his credit in the Bank, he had cheated the authorities and had companymitted an offence punishable under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.
The Additional District Magistrate, Kanpur, who tried the case, held that the offence had been made out and companyvicted the appellant and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.
In response to a numberice dated 4th November, 1949, the District Development Officer, Etawah, inviting tenders for the supply of bricks in companynection with a Flood Relief Housing Scheme, the appellant made a tender which was accepted and he was required to deposit in accordance with the rules, a sum of Rs.
1,000/ .
On his return the money will be deposited.
At that time the appellant was number in station and his brother, one Sobhraj, went, 011 the 22nd November, to the Development Officer and staled as follows Laxmi Narain has gone out.
The cheque presented by the appellant, therefore, companyld number have been accepted by the authorities acting under that rule.
5/ to his credit on that date.
It is against this order that the present appeal has been filed by special leave.
There was a revision preferred to the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge, and that was heard by Sankar Saran J. who observed that, on the facts, the appellant was number a cheat as cheating is generally understood in companymon parlance and that he was a victim of circumstances, but held that technically the offence had been established and he accordingly companyfirmed the companyviction.
On this representation the cheque was sent for encashment and was dishonoured.
The charge against the appellant is that in giving the cheque on 17 11 1949, and in re presenting it on the 22nd of November, 1949, when there was admittedly only a sum of Rs.
When the letter dated 21st November was received, he number having been there, his brother Sobhraj, who it, is stated was also interested in the business, took it into his head to see P. W. 2 on the 22nd and make the representation which has already been mentioned.
On the 21st of November, 1949, the Development Officer returned the cheque asking the appellant to deposit cash as required by the rule.
P 2, which prescribes the procedure to be adopted in the matter of acceptance of tenders, the deposit should be in cash or postal securities.
On that day the appellant was number in station.
He however reduced the term of imprisonment to the period already undergone, but companyfirmed the fine.
It must be numbered that according to Clause 11 of Ex.
If the District Development Officer so desired, he companyld have the cheque cashed.
Accordingly, on the 17th of November, 1949, he delivered a cheque dated 16th November for Rs.
appeal to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Kanpur, who affirmed the companyviction and the sentence passed by the Additional District Magistrate.
Now assuming for the purpose of the present appeal that Sobhraj was actuated by dishonest intention in making those representations, the question is whether the appellant companyld be fixed with responsibility for those representations and whether dishonest intention companyld be imputed to him.
The appellant took the matter in.
Venkatarama Ayyar, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad companyfirming the companyviction of the appellant by the two companyrts below on a charge under Section 420, Indian Penal Code.
