Plot Seller’s Acquittal Stands In Cheating Case Over Revoked GPA; P&H HC Finds No Perversity In Appeal Court’s View

Gian Singh complained that Harcharan Singh had agreed to sell a 500-square-yard plot, received the full consideration, delivered possession and executed a General Power of Attorney in 1999, which he later cancelled.

An FIR was registered under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B IPC; Harcharan Singh was ultimately charged under Section 420 IPC.

The trial Court convicted him under Section 418 IPC and sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

The appellate Court allowed his appeal, set aside the conviction and acquitted him, citing evidentiary deficiencies and doubts about the transaction.

Gian Singh’s legal representatives challenged the acquittal in revision; the High Court condoned the filing delay and permitted them to pursue the petition.

Under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., revisional interference with an acquittal is narrow and supervisory; it is warranted for such defects as patent perversity, manifest illegality or material misreading of evidence resulting in a failure of justice, not merely because another view of the evidence is possible.

Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. bars the High Court from converting an acquittal into a conviction; where interference is justified, permissible relief may include remand or retrial.

Under V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 3 SCC 78, cheating requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction; subsequent non-performance alone does not establish that intention.

For Section 418 IPC, the prosecution must additionally establish that the accused cheated while knowing that wrongful loss was likely to a person whose interests the accused was bound by law or legal contract to protect.

The High Court found that the appellate Court had considered the agreement, the admitted execution of the General Power of Attorney, alterations in the agreement, the absence of particulars about the consideration, references to earlier transactions and investigative deficiencies, and had assessed these matters cumulatively.

The later cancellation of the authority could have civil consequences, but did not by itself establish dishonest intention at the inception or the other ingredients of Section 418 IPC.

The complainants’ reliance on the documents and the accused’s refusal to provide specimen signatures did not show that the appellate Court had misread or excluded material evidence; a possible alternative inference was insufficient to displace the acquittal.

Although the appellate Court misstated the complainant’s year of death, the error was not shown to have materially affected the acquittal or caused a miscarriage of justice.

The criminal revision was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of.