1976 Supreme(Mad) 538
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Natarajan, J.
State by Public Prosecutor .....Appellant(s)
Versus
Ramadoss Naidu and others .....Respondent(s)
Crl. A.Nos, 332 to 335 of 1974.
Decided On : 13 October 1976
A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, for Public Prosecutor, for Appellant.
R. Balasubrammiam, F. Mahboobjan, H.S. Abdullah Shereef, K. Thirumalai, M. Krishnamorthy, C. Selvaraj, for R. Balasubramenian and T.S. Arunachalam, for Respondents.
Necessary ingredients for offence of cheating.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 415 and 420-Ingredients for offence of cheating-Wrongful loss to person deceived if can be held as necessary ingredient for offence of cheating.
2. The facts in C.A. Nos. 232 and 335 of 1974 are somewhat alike, while the facts in C.A. Nos. 333 and 334 of 1974 arc similar in character.
3. The Land Development Bank in Gingee introduced a scheme for disbursement of loans to agriculturists for the purpose of digging new wells or for the purchase of new oil engines. A ryot wishing to avail the loan facility had to make an application to the bank and had also to produce a certificate firm the Village Karnam about the extent of the land owned by him and its approximate value. Wherever a loan was sanctioned, the applicant had also to execute a mortgage deed and, give property security to the bank for the loan advanced, to him. In the case of loans for digging up of wells the maximum amount fixed was Rs. 3,000 while in the case of loans for purchasing new oil engines the maximum amount fixed was Rs. 4,000. In the former case one-half of the loan amount will first be paid to the ryot. Willi that amount he had to start the digging of the well. The progress of the work will be checked and verified by an employee of the bank and on his certificate that the first instalment of the loan had been fully utilised, the balance of the loan amount would be given to the leanee. In the respect of the loans for purchase of new oil engines, the loanee will have to produce a bill from the dealer, who supplied him the oil engine as proof of his having purchased an oil engine. The bank would then issue a cheque in favour of the dealer, who had supplied the oil engine to the ryot.
4. In accordance with this scheme the respondent in C.A. No. 332 of 1974 as well as respondents 1 and 2 in C.A. No. 335 applied for loans from the bank for digging new wells. All the formalities were gone through and they were given the first instalment of Rs. 1,500. Later they produced utilisation certificates from the concerned staff member of the bank and thereafter the second instalment was also given. The third respondent in C.A. No. 335 of 1974 is one such staff member, who had given utilisation certificate in favour of respondents 1 and 2 in the said appeal. Later a member of the Special Audit Squad for the Co-operative Societies made a check of the loan transaction entered into by the bank and, it was then found that the respondent in C.A. No. 332 of 1974 and respondents 1 and 2 in C.A. No. 335 of 1974 had not dug any new well in their respective lands. In the process of investigation it was also found that the third respondent in C.A. No. 335 of 1974 had given a false utilisation certificate. It was in those circumstances the concerned respondents in the two appeals were prosecuted for committing an offence of cheating. The third respondent in C.A. No. 335 of 1974 was charged for abetting the commission of the offence of cheating by respondents 1 and 2.
5. In so far as the respondents in the two other appeals are concerned, the Special Audit Squad found that the first respondent in C.A. No. 333 of 1974 had not purchased an oil engine at all. The second respondent therein was found to have issued a false bill in favour of the first respondent to make it appear that he had purchased, a new oil engine from him. Similarly the first respondent in C.A. No.? 34 of 1974 had not purchased a new oil engine, but had purchased only an old oil engine, which was not in working order at the time of inspection by the Special Audit Squad. The second respondent in the appeal was charged for abatting the offence of cheating committed by the first respondent, in that he had issued a false bill to make it appear that he had supplied a new oil engine to the first respondent.
6. The