Back
1985 Supreme(All) 166
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. P. MATHUR
SHYAM SUNDER - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
CRIMINAL REVISION 915 Of 1982
Decided On : 05/01/1985
Palok Basu, S.P.SINGH, Suresh Kumar Gupta
The intention to cheat from the very inception is a necessary ingredient of the offence under S. 420, I. P. C. and can be inferred from the circumstances and conduct of the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - CHEATING - S. 420, I. P. C. - Ingredients of the offence - Intention to cheat from the very inception - Circumstances and conduct of the accused to be considered - Mere failure to fulfil the promise not sufficient to infer dishonest intention.
Fact of the Case:
The accused persons obtained Rs. 2000/- from the complainant on the promise to obtain a permit, license, or quota of coal in the name of the complainant's son. After obtaining the money, the accused persons did not obtain any such permit, license, or quota and did not return the money.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused persons had the intention to cheat the complainant from the very inception, as they did not take any steps to obtain the permit, license, or quota after obtaining the money and did not return the money.
Issues: Whether the accused persons had the intention to cheat the complainant from the very inception.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused persons had the intention to cheat the complainant from the very inception, as they did not take any steps to obtain the permit, license, or quota after obtaining the money and did not return the money. The court relied on the following principles: * For an offence under S. 420, I. P. C., the accused need not make false pretense in express words. The same may be inferred from all circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining property. * To hold a person guilty of the offence of cheating, it has to be shown that his intention was dishonest at the time of the making of the promise and such dishonest intention cannot be inferred from the mere fact that he could not subsequently fulfil the promise. * The question whether the evidence discloses only a breach of civil liability or a criminal offence under S. 420, I. P. C. depends upon whether the complainant in parting with his money acted on the representations of accused and in belief of the truth thereof and whether those representations when made were in fact false to the knowledge of the accused and whether he had a dishonest intention from the outset.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both the revisions and upheld the conviction and sentence of the accused persons.
( 1 ) BOTH these revisions, which have been heard together are directed against the judgment and order passed on 14-5-1982 by Mr. U. S. Pandey, the then IV Add1. Sessions Judge, Mirzapur. The learned Judge was disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1982, which had been filed in his Court against the judgment and order passed on 22-12-1981 by the 1st Additional Munsif Magistrate, Mirzapur in Case No. 69 of 1981. The learned Munsif Magistrate convicted Shyam Sunder Gupta and Raj Kumar Gupta under S. 420 read with 34, I. P. C and sentenced each one of them to one years rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge maintained the conviction, but altered the sentence by imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each one of the accused persons and in default making the defaulter liable to three months rigorous imprisonment, and also punishing them with sentence of imprisonment till the rising of the Court. The contention on behalf of the revisionists of Criminal Appeal No. 915 of 1982 namely Shyam Sunder Gupta and Raj Kumar Gupta is that the order of conviction is wrong and should not have been passed and cannot be justified, as no case under S. 420 read with 34, I. P. C. is made out. The contention on behalf of Ramapati Pandey, who is the complainant revisionist of Crl. Revision No. 1536 of 1982, is that the sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is inadequate and should be enhanced.
( 2 ) I have heared the learned counsel on both the sides. It is undoubted that so far as points of fact are concerned, they stand concluded by the findings of two Courts below, and this Court will not interfere with the same, but only question of law can be considered. So far as the question of enhancement of sentence is concerned, it is a legal point and will have to be considered in the light of the circumstances of the case.
( 3 ) THE established case is that Ramapati Pandey has got a son Rama Shankar. This young man was out of job and so Ramapati Pandey was keen to see that he was somehow fixed. Through the intervention of a common friend namely Chinta Mani Tewari, he came into contact with Shyam Sunder Gupta and his son Raj Kumar Gupta. The first meeting took place in village Baraudha. During the course of subsequent meetings Ramapati Pandey made a mention to Raj Kumar Gupta and his father Shyam Sunder Gupta about the unemployed state of his son and about his anxiety in this matter. It is said that the two accused persons told Ramapati Pandey that it would be better if he put his son Ramashankar in Coal Business. When Ramapati Pandey expressed that he had no experience of such a business, he was informed that the accused persons were familiar with certain high up of Bina Colliery and that they would try to obtain a quota or license for Coal Depot for Ramashankar. They also gave out that a sum of Rs. 3000/- will be needed for this purpose. Ramapati Pandey expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount and said that he was only possessed of Rs. 2000/ -. The two accused persons agreed to do his job for that money and ultimately in presence of a number of persons including Tilakdhari, Chintamani Tewari and Ramashankar, a sum of Rs. 2000/- was paid to Raj Kumar Gupta and he counted the money and handed it over to his father. Ramapati Pandey understood that the accused persons will try to obtain for Ramashankar from Bina Colliery some sort of license to run a Coal Depot and to get a quota fixed. It is contended that they did not do so and also did not return the money but made themselves scarce and were not available in spite of repeated attempts by Ramapati Pandey. It was only after a long time that Ramapati Pandey by chance met Shyam Sunder Gupta at the Railway Station on 15-4-1981, when he demanded his money back, Shyam Sunder Gupta told him that there was no such money transaction between them and that he should keep quiet otherwise he might be properly dealt with. Then Ramapati Pandey sent a c
