TULSI RAM versus STATE OF U. P.

TULSI RAM versus STATE OF U. P.

Appellants were not entitled to raise the question of sanction for prosecution for the first time in Supreme Court as it required investigation of facts. The official communication on record recited the fact that sanction had been granted by the Governor, raising presumptions as to regularity. For conviction under...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Tulsi Ram; Appellant: Beni Gopal; Appellant: Babu Lal; Appellant: Moti Lal; Appellant: Lachhimi Narain; Appellant: Chandrika Singh; Respondent: State of U. P.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 September 1962
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Cheating, Sanction for Prosecution, Reduction of Sentence
Criminal Law Conspiracy Cheating Sanction for Prosecution Reduction of Sentence

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tulsi Ram

Appellant

Beni Gopal

Appellant

Babu Lal

Appellant

Moti Lal

Appellant

Lachhimi Narain

Appellant

Chandrika Singh

Appellant

State of U. P.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sanction for prosecution under s. 196A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was validly accorded.
  2. 2 Whether conviction for cheating under s. 420 IPC requires both wrongful gain and wrongful loss.
  3. 3 Whether sentences for conspiracy to cheat should be reduced given circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants were not entitled to raise the question of sanction for prosecution for the first time in Supreme Court as it required investigation of facts. The official communication on record recited the fact that sanction had been granted by the Governor, raising presumptions as to regularity. For conviction under s. 420 IPC, it was held that dishonest inducement to part with property does not require proof of both wrongful gain and wrongful loss—proof of either is sufficient.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed

Orders

  • Conviction and sentence of Chandrika Singh under s. 120B IPC set aside.
  • Sentence of imprisonment for Lachhimi Narain reduced to three years; fine increased to Rs. 10,000/-.