AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges

    Kalipada Mondal Accused v. Kali Kinkar Chatterjee Complainant Opposite Party.

    1. In this case the petitioner purchased a gramophone from the shop of the complainant, paid Rs. 80 and promised to pay Rs. 9 per month for ten months. This was in October 1934. Thereafter the petitioner paid nothing. About ten months afterwards the complainant went to his house and asked for the machine. The petitioner could not immediately produce it and a criminal complaint was lodged. The petitioner produced the machine in Court. He has been convicted under S. 406, I.P.C Upon perusal of the papers it appears that it is a matter of civil dispute.

    2. It was the business of the complainant not to sell his machine unless he could see reasonable prospect of monthly instalments. If traders pass on their goods to improvident and impecunious persons, they must suffer the loss. The mere nonpayment of monthly instalments cannot be considered as a criminal offence. As for the delay in producing the machine, it was actually produced in Court. There is no finding that he had actually sold the machine. The conviction is set aside. The fine, if paid, is to be refunded.

    D.S/R.K

    3. Conviction set aside.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Kalipada Mondal Accused v. Kali Kinkar Chatterjee Complainant Opposite Party.
    (Jul 24, 1936)