# STATE OF WEST BENGAL v. RAJ KUMAR AGARWALLA

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 278
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-10-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 172 of 1971
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-west-bengal-v-raj-kumar-agarwalla-6790
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

A
c
D
E
F
G
H
278
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
v.
RAJ KUMAR AGARWALLA
October 10, 1975
jH. R. KHANNA AND M. H. BEG, JJ.]
Code Qf Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) s. 439-Qut!IShing of charge by
High Court-Charge of conspiracy to defraud and chep.t-If could be framed
against a person who appears dn the scene after lodging of complaint to police,
The complainant lodged a complaint to the police of a conspiracy to cheat
and defraud l;>im.
That report did not mention the respondent's name, because,
it was the case of the prosecution itself that the respondent appeared on the
scene only subsequent to the lodging of the report. The part attributed to him
was that he was present along with the person complained against when the
latter came to the complainant to demand money.
That circumstance alone
would not warrant the inference that the respondent was also a party to any
conspiracy to defraud or cheat the complainant. The High Court was, therefore, right in quashing the charges framed against the respondent.
[279E-F]

## Text

A
c
D
E
F
G
H
278
STATE OF WEST BENGAL
v.
RAJ KUMAR AGARWALLA
October 10, 1975
jH. R. KHANNA AND M. H. BEG, JJ.]
Code Qf Criminal Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) s. 439-Qut!IShing of charge by
High Court-Charge of conspiracy to defraud and chep.t-If could be framed
against a person who appears dn the scene after lodging of complaint to police,
The complainant lodged a complaint to the police of a conspiracy to cheat
and defraud l;>im.
That report did not mention the respondent's name, because,
it was the case of the prosecution itself that the respondent appeared on the
scene only subsequent to the lodging of the report. The part attributed to him
was that he was present along with the person complained against when the
latter came to the complainant to demand money.
That circumstance alone
would not warrant the inference that the respondent was also a party to any
conspiracy to defraud or cheat the complainant. The High Court was, therefore, right in quashing the charges framed against the respondent.
[279E-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 172 of
1971.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 7-5-70 of the Calcutta High Court in Criminal Revision No. 370
of 1970.
M. M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatterjee for the Appellant.
A. K. Sen, Mrs. Leila Seth, Mrs. Anja11a Sen and 0. P. Khaitan for
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
KHANNA, J.-This appeal by special leave is by the State of West
Bengal against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court whereby the
High Court in a revision petition under section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure quashed the charges framed by the Presidency
Magistrate against Raj Kumar Agarwalla respondent.
The prosecution case is that on November 8, 1967 Shankerlal representing himself to be a broker of foreign machinery parts went to
Ram Avtar Prasad complainant and told him that he (Shanker Lal)
could arrange for a transaction of sale of foreign goods which would
result in good profit to the complainant. The complainant agreed to
the proposal and wanted to see the seller of the foreign goods in question.
On the following day Shanker Lal came with another man
named Pandey and told Ram Avtar complainant that Pandey was an
agent of Shri Hanuman Agency and would supply the foreign goods
known as washer plates. Pandey showed Ram A vtar the samples of
those washer plates. One of those samples was kept by Ram Avtar.
A day after that Shanker Lal brought one. Saheb Jaman Khan alongwith him to Ram Avtar and introduced Saheb Jaman Khan as agent
of M/s. Ashoke Trading Corporation of Indore.
Ram Avtar then
agreed to purchase 200 pieces of the washer plates at tlie rate of Rs.
38/- per piece.
Formal order, it was
then agreed, would be sent
through Shanker Lal.
' .
'
• .
-..
'
~.
~·
I
',
•
..
'
,,.
"
""
,.
'j
....
Ji
WEST BENGAL v. R. K. AGARWALLA (Khanna, J.)
27,9
On November 15, 1967 Shanker Lal handed over the said formal
order to Ram Avtar and stated that the goods would be supplied
0111
the following day.
Ram Avtar was also
told. that this transaction
would fetch him a profit of Rs. 3200/-. On November 16,, 1967 Ram
Avtar lodged a report with the police against Shanker Lal after hi~
suspicion had been aroused. Later on that day Shanker Lal and Rai.
Kumar A!!arwalla came to the shop of Ram Avtar
with
washer
plates in ,j taxi.
Price of the said goods was then demanded from
Ram Avtar.
Shanker Lal and Raj Kumar Agarwalla were thereupon
arrested by the police.
It appears that the police did not submit any charge sheet on the
basis of the report which had been lodged by Ram Avtar and the accused were discharged.
Subsequently, the proceedings were set in
motion against Raj Kumar Agarwalla, Shanker Lal and Saheb Jaman
Khan.
Charge under sections 420, 468 and 471 Indian Penal Cede
read with section 120B Indian Penal Code was framed against all the
three accused.
Another charge under section 420 read with section
511 lndiitn Penal Code was framed against Raj Kumar Agarwalla and
Shanker Lal. Raj Kumar Agarwalla thereafter filed a revision petition
in the High Court for quashing the charge against him. The revision
petition was allowed by the High Court on the ground that so far as
Raj Kumar Agarwalla was concerned, no case had been made out
against him.
Charges framed agai.nst him were consequently quashed.
We have heard Mr. Kshatriya on behalf of the appellant-State, and
are of the view that there is no cogent ground for interference with the
judgment of the High Court.
The report which was lodged by Ram
A vtar in the very nature of things made no mention of the name of Ra.i
Kumar Agarwalla r·~spondent because it is the case of the prosecution
itself that Raj Kumar appeared on the scene only subsequent to the
lodging of the report.
The part which is attributed to Raj Kumar is
that he was present along with Shanker Lal, when the latter brought
washer plates in a taxi and demanded the price of the washer plates
from Ram A vtar.
That circumstance, as ·pointed out by the High
Cooct, would hardly warrant an inference that Raj Kumar respondent
too was a party to any conspiracy to defraud or cheat Ram Avtar. We
find no infirmity in.the judgment of the High Court as might induce us
to interfere.
· The appeal fails and is dismissed.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed:.
19-Ll276/SCl /75
A
B
c
D
E
F