Present : Shaw J.

THE KING v. CHANDRASEKERA.

57-D. C. (Crim.), Chilaw, 3,443.

Cheating-Deception need not be by express words-Conduct-Inducement to deliver need not be wholly due to the deceit-Penal Code, s. 398.

A gave a cheque to the accused for money borrowed by him, and made accused understand that he had no money in the Bank. In a few days the accused knowing that the cheque would not be met on presentation endorsed the cheque and gave it to B to cash it at C's boutique.. The accused did not accompany B. B made C understand that it was a good cheque, and said that he would be responsible if it was not met.

Held, in the circumstances that the accused was guilty of cheating.

To constitute cheating it is not necessary that the deception should be by express words or visible representation. It may be equally practised by conduct employed in the transaction itself.

The inducement to deliver need not have been wholly due to the deceit independent of other auxiliary causes. - The accused by endorsing the cheque and giving it to be cashed made a representation it was a good cheque. Although B said that he would be personally responsible