9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Application under Section 401 read with Section 482 Cr.PC for revision of judgment and order confirming conviction and sentence under Section 420 IPC. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought revision of the judgment and order confirming his conviction and sentence under Section 420 IPC. The complaint alleged that the petitioner, claiming to be the owner of a property, executed a sale deed in favor of the complainant. The petitioner was found guilty by the Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, leading to the present application for revision. 2. The grounds of appeal included the absence of inducement or dishonest intention on the petitioner's part, lack of evidence of his awareness of the Will executed by his father, and the alleged failure of the appellate court to properly scrutinize the evidence. The petitioner argued that the conviction under Section 420 IPC was unjustified, citing relevant case laws to support his contentions. 3. The respondent supported the findings of the lower court and argued against any interference with the judgment. 4. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 aims to correct miscarriages of justice due to legal misconceptions, procedural irregularities, or undue harshness. The High Court's discretion in such matters is guided by the interest of justice and the specific circumstances of each case. The court may intervene in findings of fact in exceptional cases to prevent a miscarriage of justice. 5. The offense of cheating under Section 415 IPC requires the establishment of a guilty intention on the part of the accused. The absence of inducement and fraudulent intent can negate the charge of cheating. The evidence presented did not sufficiently demonstrate inducement by the petitioner, undermining the invocation of Section 420 IPC. 6. Moreover, fraudulent intent must be evident from the beginning of the transaction to sustain a charge of cheating. The petitioner's lack of obligation to disclose certain facts, coupled with the complainant's failure to conduct due diligence, weakened the case for cheating. The court emphasized the principle of caveat emptor and the importance of establishing fraudulent intent at the transaction's inception. 7. Consequently, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the petitioner beyond a reasonable doubt. The application for revision was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and acquitting the petitioner of the offense under Section 420 IPC. 8. The judgment directed the immediate release of the petitioner and ordered the transmission of the order to the lower court without delay. Certified copies of the order were to be provided to the concerned parties promptly.
|
