Back
1888 Supreme(Cal) 67
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Trevelyan, J., Macpherson, J.
The Government of Bengal - Appellant
Versus
Umesh Chunder Mitter & Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 06-11-1888
Subject
Criminal Law - Attempt to Cheat
Act Referred
Headnote
Attempt to Cheat - Currency Notes - Indian Penal Code Sections 420, 511 - The court held that the accused's actions constituted an attempt to cheat, despite the fact that the Currency Office was aware of the false pretenses and would not have paid the money. The court reasoned that the accused's actions, including making a false application for payment and providing false documentation, constituted an attempt to obtain money by false pretenses, even though the attempt was ultimately unsuccessful. The court also found that the accused acted dishonestly, as they knew that the Government was legally entitled to retain the money until it was claimed by the rightful owner of the full notes.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, Umesh Chunder Mitter, attempted to claim payment for half currency notes, claiming he had lost the other halves. He submitted a false application and supporting documents, including a certificate and declaration containing false statements. The Currency Office, however, was aware of the false pretenses and would not have paid the money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused's actions constituted an attempt to cheat, despite the fact that the Currency Office was aware of the false pretenses and would not have paid the money. The court reasoned that the accused's actions, including making a false application for payment and providing false documentation, constituted an attempt to obtain money by false pretenses, even though the attempt was ultimately unsuccessful. The court also found that the accused acted dishonestly, as they knew that the Government was legally entitled to retain the money until it was claimed by the rightful owner of the full notes.
Issues: Whether the accused's actions constituted an attempt to cheat, despite the fact that the Currency Office was aware of the false pretenses and would not have paid the money. Whether the accused acted dishonestly.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an attempt to cheat can be made even if the person being cheated is aware of the false pretenses and would not be deceived. The court also held that the prosecution must prove that the accused acted dishonestly, which means that they intended to cause wrongful gain to themselves or wrongful loss to another person. In this case, the court found that the accused acted dishonestly because they knew that the Government was legally entitled to retain the money until it was claimed by the rightful owner of the full notes.
Final Decision: The court convicted Umesh Chunder Mitter under Sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to cheat and convicted Hem Chunder Chatterjee for abetting the offense. Both were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200, with a default sentence of two months of simple imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
Macpherson and Trevelyan, JJ. - This is an appeal from an acquittal. The first accused was charged with attempting to cheat. The other prisoners were charged with aiding and abetting him in the commission of the offence of cheating.
2. After one witness had been examined for the defence, the Magistrate stopped the case and acquitted the prisoners.
3. When we first heard this appeal the Advocate-General appeared for the Grown. At the conclusion of his opening address we held that there was no case against Haran Chunder Chatterjee, and accordingly we discharged him. We then heard Counsel for the other accused and the Advocate-General in reply. After consideration we discharged the accused Jaddub Chunder Gangooly, and expressed our opinion that the Magistrate ought not to have stopped the case for the defence so far as the remaining two accused were concerned. We gave them an opportunity of calling evidence before us. We have since heard such evidence as has been produced on behalf of the accused Umesh Chunder Mifcter and Hem Chunder Chatterjee, and must now deal with the case as completed.
4. Although we are told that in dismissing the case the Magistrate made some statement, he did not record his reasons for acquitting, and therefore we have not the advantage of knowing the nature of, or the grounds for, his opinion.
5. There is no serious difficulty about the facts of this case. The chief questions depend upon the effect to be given to those facts, and the inferences to be derived from them.
6. It is contended that the facts proved do not disclose an offence, and therefore it is desirable to see what are the undoubted facts of this case.
7. On the 23rd of May last the principal accused Umesh Chunder Mitter sent in to the Currency Office a letter (Exhibit A), enclosing two half currency notes for Us. 20 each, stating that the other halves were lost from his box where he kept them, and asking what steps should be taken for the recovery of the money.
8. On receipt of this letter, Mr. Keene, the Assistant Comptroller-General in charge of the Currency Office, caused a search to be made in the Registration Branch of his office to see if there was any other claim against the two notes. On such search it was found that the amount of the notes had been paid to the holder of the other halves.
9. Mr. Keene then caused a document, which is marked Exhibit D, to be sent to Umesh Chunder Mitter. This was sent on the 28th of May, with a covering letter which treated Umesh Chunder's letter as an application for the payment of the value of the notes, and requested him to answer the questions embodied in the claim.
10. D is a form of claim with questions to be answered by the claimant.
11. As to his sending this form Mr. Keene states: "My object in sending out I) was, believing these men were attempting to cheat, I wanted them to commit themselves." It is clear that when he sent out D, Mr. Keene did not contemplate paying Umesh Chunder Mitter in respect of the notes. Within Mr. Keene's experience no notes had been paid a second time, and, as he says, it ought not to happen that they are paid a second time. He was examined as to what he would do, in case, after payment to one applicant, a second applicant were to make out his title, but as such an event had not happened within his experience his answer is purely hypothetical.
12. The questions contained in this form of claim were filled in, signed by Umesh Chunder Mitter, and returned to the Currency Office on the 11th of June. This document, as filled up, is in form and intent an application for the payment of the money.
13. In answer to the questions contained in this form, Umesh Chunder Mitter stated that he was proprietor of the entire notes, that he received them from Haran Chunder Chatterjee of Gobard angah about October 1887, that he himself divided them in halves for the purpose of forwarding them to his cousin, that in December 1887 he lost the halves from his box, and that the persons who c
