Ingredients for the offence of cheating.

The accused was charged under three counts under section 420, Indian Penal Code, and was convicted by the Court of the Joint First Glass Magistrate, Coonoor and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300 for each of the three offences, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal the Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore set aside the conviction. The Public Prosecutor preferred the above appeal.

The case of the prosecution may be briefly stated. The accused was the highest bidder for the year 1947-48 at the auction of minor forest produce in Ooty, Seegur and Mudumalai ranges. The amount of his bid was Rs. 10,750 and he paid 25 per cent of the bid amount, that is, Rs. 2,887-8-0 on 25th June, 1947 and 26th June 1947. He represented to P.W.1 and her father P.W.3 that he urgently required money for depositing the balance of the bid amount with the Forest Department and that P.W.1 believing his representations lent him a sum of Rs. 5,500 on three promissory notes dated 8th July, 1947, 17th July, 1947 and 19th August, 1947, Exhibits P-2, P-3 and P-4 respectively. He also represented that he had 10 tons of sandalwood worth Rs. 13,000 and that he had sold sandalwood worth Rs. 7,000 to one Sarobji and that he had not received the money yet from him. Relying upon those two representations the accused fraudulently, with no intention of repaying the amount, committed the offence of cheating.

The offence of cheating is defined by section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. It reads:-

"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act of omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat.

Explanation.-A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."

The offence therefore is made up of two ingredients. (1) Deception of any person, (2) (a) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or (2) (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. For the purpose of this case 2 (b) may be ignored as the arguments were advanced to bring in the case within the first part of the definition.

Deceiving generally is to lead into error by causing to believe what is false or to disbelieve what is true. If A makes a representation to B intending to deceive B and B acts upon that representation, B may be said to be deceived by A . If A makes that representation which induces B to lend money to him who has no intention of repaying it to A , the offence of cheating is complete. But, on the other hand, if B does not act upon the representation of A but lends money because he is satisfied with the financial position of A and if A has the intention of repaying it, it cannot be said that A is guilty of the offence of cheating.

The main witnesses for the prosecution are P.Ws.1 and 3. P.W.1 says that the accused wanted money to pay as a deposit to the Forest Department on account of the contract for minor forest produce which he had taken, and believing what he said she paid him the amounts on 8th July, 1947, 17th July, 1947, and 19th August, 1947. She asserts that, but for his assurance that he had to get money from Sorabji and that he had taken a Forest Department contract she would not have paid the accused money because it was reserved for her marriage. P.W.3, her father, also says that the accused represented to him that he required money to make up one-fourth of the contract amount which he had t