Back
2008 Supreme(MP) 608
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
R. S. GARG, J.
Suresh Kumar Sharma
Versus
State of M.P.
Crl. Revn. No.261 of 1998
Decided On : 20-5-2008.
Avinash Patel, learned counsel for Applicant; R.S. Patel, learned Addl. Adv. General, for Respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a conviction under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused must dishonestly induce or deceive the victim to deliver property, and if this element is not satisfied, a lower charge under Section 417 may be applicable.
Headnote:
Cheating - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 420, Section 511 - Summary: The court discussed the definitions of cheating under Section 415, and the provisions of Section 417 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. It emphasized that the accused did not dishonestly induce or deceive the victim to deliver any property, and therefore, the conviction under Section 420 was unjustified. The court held that the accused could be convicted under Section 417, a lower charge.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was convicted under Section 420 read with Section 511, IPC for presenting a fraudulent letter to secure employment. The letter was found to be fake, and the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment and pay a fine.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conviction under Section 420 was unjustified as the accused did not dishonestly induce or deceive the victim to deliver any property. It held that the accused could be convicted under Section 417, a lower charge. The court also reduced the jail sentence considering the applicant's disability and the time already spent in jail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused's actions constituted cheating under Section 420 read with Section 511, IPC, and if the conviction was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused did not dishonestly induce or deceive the victim to deliver any property, and therefore, the conviction under Section 420 was unjustified. It emphasized that the accused could be convicted under Section 417, a lower charge.
Final Decision: The revision filed by the applicant was partly allowed. The court maintained the fine amount but reduced the substantive jail sentence to the period already undergone.
2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are that the applicant Suresh Kumar Sharma on 4-10-1990 came to the office of Prabhakant Katare (P.W. 2). Executive Engineer in the Office of Rural Engineering Services and infofmed him that from the Secretariat of the Chief Minister letter No. 474/CMS/90 dated 1-10-1990 has been issued in favour of the present applicant with a direction to give him an appointment. P.W. 2 Prabhakant Katare got suspicious, therefore, kept the letter with him and asked the accused to come after 3/4 days. Immediately thereafter, said Prabhakant Katare enquired from the Secretariat of the Chief Minister about the genuineness of the letter. He was informed that such letter was not issued from the Secretariat of the Chief Minister. The matter was reported to the Police and, therefore, an offence was registered against the present applicant.
3. The applicant took the defence that the letter was genuine and he has not committed any offence. However, the learned trial Court found the applicant guilty for offence under Section 420/511 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 100/-.
4. As the appeal proved futile the appellant is before this Court.
5. Shri Patel, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that present is a case of no evidence because the applicant had received the letter through post and there is nothing on the record to show, suggest or prove that the applicant forged the letter or cheated anybody. It was also submitted that the applicant is a disabled person and, therefore, there was no reason for him to commit the offence of cheating. It was lastly submitted that the offence would not fall under Section 420/511 but would come under Section 417/511.
6. Shri R. S. Patel, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, on the other hand submitted that the prosecution was required to prove that the letter on which the present applicant was relying was not issued from the office of the Chief Minister and if such burden was discharged then the present applicant was required to prove that the letter written in his interest was not a fraud or the accused did not propose to cheat anybody.
7. Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'Cheating' as under :
415. Cheating - 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 persons 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 or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Section 417 provides that whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Section 420, IPC is an aggravated form of Section 117. Section 417 provides punishment for simple cheating while Section 420 provides punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Section 420 reads as under :
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be p
