http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJ KUMAR AGARWALLA

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/10/1975

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH

CITATION:  1977 AIR  301            1976 SCR  (2) 278  1976 SCC  (2) 204

ACT:      Code of  Criminal Procedure  (Act 5  of 1898)  s.  439- Quashing of  charge by  High Court-Charge  of conspiracy  to defraud and  cheat-If could  be framed  against a person who appears on the scene after lodging of complaint to police.

HEADNOTE:      The complainant  lodged a  complaint to the police of a conspiracy to  cheat and  defraud him.  That report  did not mention the  respondent’s name,  because, it was the case of the prosecution  itself that  the respondent appeared on the scene only subsequent to the lodging of the report. The part attributed to  him was  that he  was present  along with the person complained  against  when  the  latter  came  to  the complainant to  demand money.  That circumstance alone would not warrant  the inference  that the  respondent was  also a party to any conspiracy to defraud or cheat the complainant. The High Court was, therefore, right in quashing the charges framed against the respondent. [279E-F] ^

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 172 of 1971.      Appeal by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and  Order dated the  7-5-70 of  the Calcutta  High Court  in  Criminal Revision No. 370 of 1970.      M.  M.   Kshatriaya  and   G.  S.  Chatterjee  for  the Appellant.      A. K.  Sen, Mrs.  Leila Seth, Mrs. Anjana Sen and O. P. Khaitan for respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      KHANNA, J.-This appeal by special leave is by the State of West  Bengal against  the judgment  of the  Calcutta High Court whereby  the High  Court in  a revision petition under section 439  of the  Code of  Criminal Procedure quashed the charges framed  by the  Presidency  Magistrate  against  Raj Kumar Agarwalla respondent.      The prosecution  case  is  that  on  November  8,  1967 Shankerlal representing  himself to  be a  broker of foreign

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

machinery parts  went to  Ram Avtar  Prasad complainant  and told  him   that  he  (Shanker  Lal)  could  arrange  for  a transaction of  sale of  foreign goods which would result in good profit  to the  complainant. The  complainant agreed to the proposal  and wanted  to see  the seller  of the foreign goods in  question. On  the following  day Shanker  Lal came with another man named Pandey and told Ram Avtar complainant that Pandey  was an  agent of  Shri Hanuman Agency and would supply the  foreign goods  known as  washer  plates.  Pandey showed Ram  Avtar the samples of those washer plates. One of those samples  was kept  by Ram  Avtar.  A  day  after  that Shanker Lal  brought one  Saheb Jaman  Khan alongwith him to Ram Avtar  and introduced  Saheb Jaman Khan as agent of M/s. Ashoke Trading  Corporation of Indore. Ram Avtar then agreed to purchase  200 pieces  of the washer plates at the rate of Rs. 38/-  per piece. Formal order, it was then agreed, would be sent through Shanker Lal. 279      On November  15, 1967  Shanker Lal handed over the said formal order to Ram Avtar and stated that the goods would be supplied on  the following day. Ram Avtar was also told that this transaction  would fetch him a profit of Rs. 3200/-. On November 16,  1967 Ram Avtar lodged a report with the police against Shanker  Lal after  his suspicion  had been aroused. Later on  that day  Shanker Lal and Raj Kumar Agarwalla came to the shop of Ram Avtar with washer plates in a taxi. Price of the  said goods was then demanded from Ram Avtar. Shanker Lal and  Raj Kumar  Agarwalla were thereupon arrested by the police.      It appears  that the  police did  not submit any charge sheet on  the basis  of the  report which had been lodged by Ram Avtar and the accused were discharged. Subsequently, the proceedings were  set in motion against Raj Kumar Agarwalla, Shanker Lal and Saheb Jaman Khan. Charge under sections 420, 468 and  471 Indian Penal Code read with section 120B Indian Penal Code was framed against all the three accused. Another charge under  section 420 read with section 511 Indian Penal Code was framed against Raj Kumar Agarwalla and Shanker Lal. Raj Kumar  Agarwalla thereafter filed a revision petition in the High  Court for  quashing the  charge against  him.  The revision petition  was allowed  by the  High  Court  on  the ground that  so far  as Raj Kumar Agawalla was concerned, no case had  been made  out against him. Charges framed against him were consequently quashed.      We have heard Mr. Kshatriya on behalf of the appellant- State, and  are of  the view  that there is no cogent ground for interference  with the  judgment of  the High Court. The report which  was lodged  by Ram Avtar in the very nature of things made  no mention  of the  name of Raj Kumar Agarwalla respondent because  it is the case of the prosecution itself that Raj  Kumar appeared on the scene only subsequent to the lodging of  the report.  The part which is attributed to Raj Kumar is  that he  was present  along with Shanker Lal, when the latter  brought washer plates in a taxi and demanded the price  of   the  washer   plates  from   Ram   Avtar.   That circumstance, as pointed out by the High Court, would hardly warrant an  inference that  Raj Kumar  respondent too  was a party to  any conspiracy  to defraud  or cheat Ram Avtar. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the High Court as might induce us to interfere.      The appeal fails and is dismissed. V.P.S.                                     Appeal dismissed. 280

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3