Appeal against acquittal in a complaint regarding visa arrangement failure. Court held that mere breach of contract without dishonest intention does not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC.
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.A.No.198 OF 2006
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1942
CRL.A.No.198 OF 2006
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 165/2002 DATED 07-07-2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,KUTHUPARAMBA
APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:
SHARAFUDHEEN, S/O. ALAVI, AGED 30 YEARS NALAKATH VEEDU, P.O.PERAVOOR, MANATHANA AMSOM,, PERAVOOR DESOM,, THALASSERY TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:
1 NABEESA K.K., W/O. RAHIM, VALIYAPARAMBATH VEEDU, PANOOR AMSOM DESOM, THALASSERY TALUK.
2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SYLAJA
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.198 OF 2006
2
T.R. RAVI, J.
CRL.APPEAL No.198 of 2006
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of March 2021
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been filed by the complainant in C.C.No.165 of 2002 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kuthuparamba challenging the judgment dated 07.07.2005, whereby the 1st respondent was acquitted by the court below. According to the appellant, the appellant came to know that the 1st respondent is engaged in arranging visa for persons who intend to migrate to the gulf countries for the purpose of employment. It is the case of the appellant that he had approached the 1st respondent during December, 2001 for the above purpose and the 1st respondent demanded a sum of Rs.60,000/- for arranging the visa and had informed the appellant that a medical report and a copy of the passport had to be made available. It is further submitted that an agreement had also been executed between the parties on 03.01.2002 regarding the above
CRL.A.No.198 OF 2006
3
transaction. According to the appellant, even though he had approached the accused on many occasions, the accused did not hand over the visa as promised. It is on the basis of the above incident that the appellant filed a complaint alleging that the 1st accused has committed offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The appellant led evidence by examining himself as PW1 and PWs 2 and 3 as persons who have witnessed the transaction. Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. The court below found that the evidence on record is not sufficient to convict the accused for offence under Section 420 IPC. It is aggrieved by the above judgment that the appellant is before this Court.
CRL.A.No.198 OF 2006
4
State of UP reported in [(2018) 14 SCC 233] . It is seen from the evidence that after entering into an oral agreement regarding the arrangement for a visa, the parties had also entered into a written agreement, which has been proved by Ext.P1. As per Ext.P1, the 1st respondent has stated that she has received Rs.10,000/- from the complainant, on behalf of her husband, who has agreed to arrange a visa for the complainant. It also says that a photocopy of the visa is handed over and that if the complainant is not able to get the job of cook which is promised, the amount will be repaid. It is further stated that if there is failure to return the money, the 1st respondent's property can be proceeded against. A reading of Ext.P1 would show that the basic requirements for an offence under Section 420 are not available in the case on hand and the remedy if at all is for the appellant to approach the appropriate civil court against any breach of the contract.
CRL.A.No.198 OF 2006
5
that the parties have entered into an agreement wherein the liability for breach is also contemplated shows that the accused did not have a dishonest intention at the time of entering into the transaction. The judgment of the court below does not warrant any interference in this appeal. The appeal fails and the same is hence dismissed.
In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Sd/- T.R.RAVI, JUDGE
dsn
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the facts constituted the offence under Section 420 IPC given the breach of contract.
Whether the accused had a dishonest intention from the beginning of the transaction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sameer Sahay v. State of UPExplained¶29
[(2018) 14 SCC 233] · Who else cites this
Sharafudheen, S/O. Alavi
Nabeesa K.K.
State of Kerala
T.R.Ravi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
