Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA SLA No.5 of 2012 ====================================================== Gopal Prasad Gupta S/o Ramswaroop Saw, R/o Vill. Banshkothi (Digha), P.S. Digha, District – Patna. .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Singh S/o Dr. Deo Narayan Singh, R/o Vill. Banshkothi (Digha), P.S. Digha, District – Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL ORDER 12 19-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned counsel for the Respondents. This Special Leave to Appeal is filed for setting aside the Judgment dated 20.09.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Patna in connection with C.R. No. 2791 (c) of 2005 and Tr. No. 810 of 2011 arising out of Complaint Case No. 2791(c) of 2005. Non-payment of loan allegedly advanced by the appellant to respondent no.2 is disbelieved for making out a case under [STATUTE] . By passing the elaborate judgment, grounds for disbelieving are that the appellant- complainant advanced loan on assurance to return the same, several cheques were issued and lastly exhibit-1 was executed by respondent no.2 but before filing of this case, a case for the offence under Section 420 was filed on behalf of the opposite Patna High Court SLA No.5 of 2012 (12) dt.19-09-2012 2 party no.2 against the complainant, handwriting of exhibit-1, the written document is denied, not compared by an expert. Most of the cheques are issued earlier to execution of this exhibit-1. There was no bank account from where the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- was withdrawn nor income tax return was filed showing this amount as loan advanced. Apart from the above findings of the trial Court, loan if really was advanced in the year 2000 several cheques were issued, exhibit-1 came in existence goes to show that every attempt was made to make the payment and it was only inability of respondent no.2 to make the payment which circumstance is speaking. Loan, if any, is advanced and not re-paid is offence only if there remains fraudulent and dishonest intention of the borrower which appears lacking in this case after going through the circumstances of the case. Thus, I find no illegality committed by the trial Court to interfere its acquittal. Accordingly, this Special Leave to Appeal is hereby dismissed. Shail/- (Mandhata Singh, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 420

Statute Text:
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Cheating and there by dishonestly inducing delivery of property, or the making, alteration or destruction of a valuable security. Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.