DEVENDER KUMAR SINGLA versus BALDEV KRISHAN SINGLA

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 17-02-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--
-
DEVENDER KUMAR SINGLA 
A 
v. 
BALDEV KRISHAN SINGLA 
FEBRUARY 17, 2004 
[DORATSWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 420 and 34-0ffence of cheatmg-
Conviction under-Justification of-Husband and wife purchasing shares from 
complainant-Husband issuing post-dated cheque and executing receipt that C 
shares were delivered to hi~heque signed by wife, filled in by complainant-
Dishonour of cheque on stop payment by wife-Complaint-Acquittal by trial 
Court-However, High Court convicting husband and maintaining acquittal 
of wife-On appeal, held: On account of delivery of shares evidenced by 
receipt and pre-varicating stand with regard to stoppage of payment, order of 
High Court with regard to conviction of husband suffers from no infirmity- D 
However, sentence reduced to three months-As presence of wife a~ the time 
of transaction not established, acquittal of wife by High Court justified. 
According to the complainant (respondent in the first appeal), 
husband-accused (appellant in the first appeal) and his wife purchased 
shares from him. He was issued post dated cheque for the total sum after E 
which complainant delivered the shares. Thereafter, the husband executed 
a receipt. The cheque was signed by the wife but filled in by the complaint. 
Cheque w,as presented on the due date for encashment but was dishonored 
as payment was stopped by the drawer. Thereafter, complainant tried to 
recover money but the efforts failed. Hence he made a complaint. Husband F 
and wife were charged under Sections 420 read with Section 34 IPC. Trial 
Court acquitted them since the complainant failed to establish the case. 
Complainant filed an appeal. High Court held that case under Section 420 
IPC was fully established against the husband and not wife, and thus, 
convicted the husband and maintained the acquittal of wife. 
Appellant in the first appeal viz., the husband contended that there 
is no.material whatsoever to show the delivery of the shares; that the 
receipt was in the nature of an advance receipt given in anticipation of 
futurt: delivery; that the complainant himself filled up the cheque, so far 
459 
G 
H 
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A as the payee and amount are concerned there is no dispute; that if in reality 
the shares had been delivered, there is no reason as to why the accused 
would not fill in the cheque and give it blank to the complainant; that in 
the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons 
have in detail described the factual position and High Court has 
B erroneously ignored them; that if in reality the deal was struck on 7.8.1992 
there was no reason to stop the payment on 1.8.1992 before any deal had 
been struck; and that wheu the complainant was not aware of the details 
of the shares, the trial court's judgment should not have been interfered 
with by the High Court. 
C 
Respondent-complainant contended that the wife had stopped 
payment of the cheque and, therefore, being party to the transaction, she 
should also be convicted; that the High Court analysed the factual position; 
that in view of the receipt executed there was no scope for the accused to 
plead that there was no delivery; that even if it is conceded for the sake 
of argument that the complainant was not able to tell the full details 
D regarding the shares, that does not in any manner corrode the credibility 
of his case; and that the plea that an advance receipt was given was never 
taken during trial and in any event no suggestion in that regard was given 
to the complainant during cross-examination. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, High Court referred to the factual 
position that cheque was handed over to the complainant and in the receipt 
it was stated that shares have been received and drew a conclusion that 
the receipt clearly states that the shares had been transferred. The mere 
fact that the cheque was filled in by the complainant i:S not sufficient to 
take away the effect of the statement in the receipt. The plea that it was 
an advance receipt was not agitated before the Courts below. Significantly, 
there was no suggestion to the complainant that the shares had not been 
delivered.(466-C-D] 
1.2. When there was definite assertion about delivery of shares 
evidenced by a receipt, the inability of the complainant to tell the number 
of shares is not sufficient to discard his case. It only establis

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.