Back
1927 Supreme(Mad) 329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Wallace
In Re: Chellam Chetty And Anr.
Versus
Unknown
Decided On : 6 May, 1927
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove false representations, inducement, and deception for the offence of cheating under Section 420, I.P.C.
Headnote:
Cheating - Offence of Cheating under Section 420, I.P.C - Section 420, I.P.C - Summary: The court discussed the elements of the offence of cheating and emphasized the need to prove false representations, inducement, and deception. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish these elements, leading to the setting aside of the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted of cheating under Section 420, I.P.C. The case involved a sports club accused of deceiving members into paying bets on horse races, with the promise of placing the bets and refunding the money if not placed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of the offence of cheating, including false representations, inducement, and deception. The lower court's careless handling of the case led to the setting aside of the conviction.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the accused made false representations, whether the representations induced the victims to hand over money, and whether there was evidence of deception due to the representations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prove false representations, inducement, and deception for the offence of cheating under Section 420, I.P.C. The failure to establish these elements led to the setting aside of the conviction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and directed that the petitioners be set at liberty, without ordering a retrial. The court also highlighted the members' own folly in participating in the activities of the sports club.
Wallace, J.
1. The petitioners in these cases were jointly charged before and convicted by the 3rd Presidency Magistrate, of the offence of cheating under Section 420, I.P.C.
2. The case against them generally was that they are the officials of a so-called Royal Sports Club, which existed for the purpose of receiving from clients bets on horse races and employing agents on the race-courses to put their clients bets on the horses, and for paying to the winning clients the sums less commission, which they had won. The clients became members of the club by a small payment and were then entitled to the above services. They put in applications to the Secretary stating the horses they wished to back and paying up the amounts of their bets.
3. The prosecution case was that P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, under these rules, became members of the club, and paid various sums as bets on horses running at Kolhapur races, believing that the club would have an agent there to place their bets, that there was no agent there and that their bets were therefore not placed, that their money has not been returned and therefore they have been cheated. The lower Court convicted petitioners, who are the secretary and manager respectively of the club, under Section 420, I.P.C. Petitioners come up in revision, the chief ground urged being that the Magistrate has wholly neglected to find that the ingredients of the offence of cheating were present.
4. It seems to me there are strong grounds for holding so and the fact that P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 cannot recover their lost money in the civil Court will not make this Court less careful to see that all the ingredients of the criminal offence of cheating are present. The essential points which the prosecution had to prove are: (1) that each accused made representations to P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3; (2) that these were false; (3)that in consequence of these false representations P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were induced to hand over their money. Now, on the charge framed, the representations are said to be contained in the book of rules, Ex. D, a copy of which is given to each member. It has been urged on behalf of the prosecution here that there is also evidence of oral representations.
5. That is so, but the lower Court has either disbelieved it or disregarded it in framing its charge. Such oral representations find no place in the charge. The charge as framed is that you" (1) Anjaneya Sastri and (2), Chellam Chetty, deceived P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 by publishing the rules of the Royal Sports Club and that P.Ws. 1 to 3 were deceived by the rules so published and induced to" pay....
and the conviction is statedly on the charge as framed;
6. What the Court had to find then was that these rules were promulgated by accused 1 and 2 to P. Ws. 1 to 3, that they contained false representations and, that P. Ws. 1 to 3 were deceived by these into paying money. I think I am right in saying that the lower Court has not considered any of these points, or recorded a finding on them. As to the first point it is not suggested that the rules were drawn up by accused 1 and 2, but it is contended that they, in their capacity as secretary and manager of the club, gave them to P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as the conditions under which they could be admitted to the privileges of the club. They are printed over the signature of accused 1, and it may be taken that his duty is not only to see that they are given to the members as the conditions under which they join the club, but also to make himself responsible on behalf of the club for the statements contained therein. That it is any part of the duties of accused 2, to supply these to members, or to represent to members that these are the conditions of membership is not in evidence. Of the four members who gave evidence, P. Ws. 1 to 4, P.W. 1 is the only one who says who gave him the book of rules, and he says accused 2 gave it to him. Now accused 2 was appointed manager by accused 1 under Ex. W, dated apparently 26th March 1926, after
