Ingredients of cheating under IPC

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 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 or 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. Illustrations

1. A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, inten­tionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.
2.  A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
3. A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, inten­tionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
4. A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.
5.  A, by pledging as diamonds article which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.
6. A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats.
7. A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.
8. A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A’s part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.
9. A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in conse­quence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.

Ingredients of Section : The section requires –

1. Deception of any person.

2. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person-

1. to deliver any property to any person; or
2. to consent that any person shall retain property, or

3. Intentionally inducing that person 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.

The Supreme Court has in S.W. Palnitkar v. State of Bihar analysed the ingredients of offence of cheating as under :

1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
2. he person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
3. The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do so deceived; and or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not
4. The act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.

1. Deceiving any person. – A person deceives another when he causes to believe what is false or misleading as to a matter of fact, or leads into error. A wilful misrepresentation of a definite fact with intent to defraud constitutes an offence of cheating. It is not sufficient to prove that a false representation had been made but it must be proved that the representation was false to the knowledge of the accused and was made to deceive the complainant.

In the case of Kanumukkia Krishnamurthy vs State of Madras 1956, Where the accused misrepresented the Public Service Commission as to his age and qualification, he was found guilty under this section. It was held that although the Commission was an independent statutory body performing advisory function, the deception of such advisory body was deception of the Government and the accused was liable under this section.

In an another case of Abhyanand Mishra vs State of Bihar. X applied to Agra University for permission to appear at the M.A. examination as a private candidate representing that he was a graduate having obtained his B.A. degree three years earlier and that he had been teaching in a certain school. In support of his application he attached certain certificates purporting to be from the Head Master of that school. The University authorities first gave X permission to appear for the M.A. examination but later on finding that the certificates produced by X were false and that he was not a graduate nor a teacher, they withdrew the permission. In this case X would be liable for attempting to cheat but if he had appeared at the examination on the basis of permission obtained through deception then he would be liable for cheating.

• Fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property. – The essence of charge under this section is that the accused induces someone fraudulently or dishonestly. The dishonest intention must either proceed or accompany the act of dishonesty. Recommendation of a person’s worthiness is not tantamount to false representation resulting in inducement. A representation must have been made knowing it to be false resulting in wrongful loss or wrongful gain. A and B in concert entice away a boy below 15 years in order to murder him. The boy is actually murdered.

A and B anonymously demand a ransom from F, the father of the deceased boy on the pretext that the boy would return if the ransom was paid. The ransom is paid but the boy is not recovered. Here A and B would be liable for murder of the boy as well as for cheating because they have induced F with dishonest intention to pay the ransom. It is not a case o…

Cheating by Personation

Cheating by personation under section 416 means A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Explanation.-The offence is committed personated is a real or imaginary person whether the individual

Illustrations

1.  A cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the same name. A cheats by personation.
2. A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased. A cheats by personation.

Whenever one pretends to be someone else than his real self, by word, act, sign, or dress, the offence under this section is committed provided some gain has accrued or some loss is incurred by either party.

Ingredients. – This section requires any one of the following essentials:

1. Pretending by a person to be some other person.
2. Knowingly substituting one person for another.
3. Representation that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Impersonation in examinations for someone, in elections for some voter, for getting married representation of some other castes than the real castes etc. are the cases wherein usually this offence is committed.

In M.N.A. Achar v. Dr. D.L. Rajgopal 1977, the accused dishonestly induced the complainant and his daughter to go through the marriage ceremony personating himself to be a bachelor, whereas he was in fact, a married person having a wife. He was prosecuted for the offence of cheating by personation and was sentenced under Section 417 of IPC.

In Sushil Kumar v. State 1985, the accused who did not belong to the category of Scheduled Caste appeared in the IAS Examination as Scheduled Caste  candidate, cleared it, and got an appointment in the reserve quota on the basis of false representation. It was held guilty of cheating by personation under Section 416/417 of IPC.

Punishment for cheating: Under Section 417, 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.

This section punishes simple cheating. Where A dines at a hotel and goes away without paying bill or leaving his name and address he would be liable for cheating under this section.

In Ravichandran v. Mariyammal 1992, the petitioner and the respondent fell in love with each other and the petitioner made persistent efforts to enjoy respondent’s blissful company even prior to their marriage, Mariyammal appeared to have been evading such request all along. But one day the petitioner requested her to share the bed on the promise that he would marry her in due course. Believing on such representation Mariyammal complied with his request and consequently she became pregnant. The fact of pregnancy became known to one and all but the petitioner refused to marry her. It was held that the petitioner was liable for cheating under section 417 I.P.C. because but for the representation so made and the deception practiced on her, she would not have been a party for sharing her bed with the petitioner, which is said to have resulted in her becoming pregnant. It was further held that the contention of the petitioner, that since cheating figured in chapter relating to offences against property, the case cannot come within the purview of section 417 I.P.C., cannot be accepted.

In the case of Gibrail Diwan v. State of Maharashtra 1997, the accused prepared invitation letters for a cultural programme on the letter-head of a Minister but the letter did not bear the Minister’s signature. The Supreme Court held that it was not proper on the part of the Court below to convict the accused for cheating under Section 417 as no harm or damage to body, mind, reputation or property was caused to anyone due to this act of the accused.

He was therefore, acquitted by the Apex Court.

Section 419. Punishment for cheating by personation._-Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section  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 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

COMMENT

When due to the actions of the cheat there is destruction or delivery of property or alteration or destruction of any valuable security this section applies. Simple cheating is covered by section 417.

It was held in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, that for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation.

Main Ingredients :

1. deception of any person;
2. fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or
3. to consent that any person shall return any property; and
4. intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would do or omit.

Case Laws for section 420

In Kewal Krishan v. State of Punjab1986, the appellant obtained iron and steel under control order from Director Industries, to be used in his factory. He obtained the commodity on payment but utilized the same for a purpose different from that for which it was obtained. It was held that the accused was not guilty of the offence of cheating under section 420 because firstly, he obtained the commodity on payment of price, and secondly, when he made the application and acquired iron and steel, he had no intention to mis-utilize it. But if after having bona fide applied for the commodity and having obtained it the accused for some reason, thought of not using it in the factory, he cannot be said to have cheated the Industry Department. It must be established for an offence under this section that the accused had an intention to cheat right from the beginning.

In Poovalappil David v. State of Kerala 1989, the petitioners are Manager and Managing Partner of “Blue Diamond Theatre” which is licensed as an air-conditioned theatre. The petitioners used to switch off the air-conditioning unit after the entry of customers to save the electrical energy for illegally enriching themselves. It was held that: the action of petitioners amounts to cheating under section 420 of the Code because by advertising the theatre as air-conditioned the petitioners had dishonestly induced customers to purchase tickets by giving higher fare to have entry into the theatre.

____________________________________________________________

Ingredients of cheating

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 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 or 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. Illustrations

1. A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, inten­tionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.
2.  A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
3. A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, inten­tionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
4. A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.
5.  A, by pledging as diamonds article which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.
6. A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats.
7. A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.
8. A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A’s part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.
9. A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in conse­quence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.

Ingredients of Section : The section requires –

1. Deception of any person.

2. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person-

1. to deliver any property to any person; or
2. to consent that any person shall retain property, or

3. Intentionally inducing that person 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.

The Supreme Court has in S.W. Palnitkar v. State of Bihar analysed the ingredients of offence of cheating as under :

1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him;
2. he person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or
3. The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do so deceived; and or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not
4. The act or omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.

1. Deceiving any person. – A person deceives another when he causes to believe what is false or misleading as to a matter of fact, or leads into error. A wilful misrepresentation of a definite fact with intent to defraud constitutes an offence of cheating. It is not sufficient to prove that a false representation had been made but it must be proved that the representation was false to the knowledge of the accused and was made to deceive the complainant.

In the case of Kanumukkia Krishnamurthy vs State of Madras 1956, Where the accused misrepresented the Public Service Commission as to his age and qualification, he was found guilty under this section. It was held that although the Commission was an independent statutory body performing advisory function, the deception of such advisory body was deception of the Government and the accused was liable under this section.

In an another case of Abhyanand Mishra vs State of Bihar. X applied to Agra University for permission to appear at the M.A. examination as a private candidate representing that he was a graduate having obtained his B.A. degree three years earlier and that he had been teaching in a certain school. In support of his application he attached certain certificates purporting to be from the Head Master of that school. The University authorities first gave X permission to appear for the M.A. examination but later on finding that the certificates produced by X were false and that he was not a graduate nor a teacher, they withdrew the permission. In this case X would be liable for attempting to cheat but if he had appeared at the examination on the basis of permission obtained through deception then he would be liable for cheating.

• Fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property. – The essence of charge under this section is that the accused induces someone fraudulently or dishonestly. The dishonest intention must either proceed or accompany the act of dishonesty. Recommendation of a person’s worthiness is not tantamount to false representation resulting in inducement. A representation must have been made knowing it to be false resulting in wrongful loss or wrongful gain. A and B in concert entice away a boy below 15 years in order to murder him. The boy is actually murdered.

A and B anonymously demand a ransom from F, the father of the deceased boy on the pretext that the boy would return if the ransom was paid. The ransom is paid but the boy is not recovered. Here A and B would be liable for murder of the boy as well as for cheating because they have induced F with dishonest intention to pay the ransom. It is not a case o…

Cheating by Personation

Cheating by personation under section 416 means A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Explanation.-The offence is committed personated is a real or imaginary person whether the individual

Illustrations

1.  A cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the same name. A cheats by personation.
2. A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased. A cheats by personation.

Whenever one pretends to be someone else than his real self, by word, act, sign, or dress, the offence under this section is committed provided some gain has accrued or some loss is incurred by either party.

Ingredients. – This section requires any one of the following essentials:

1. Pretending by a person to be some other person.
2. Knowingly substituting one person for another.
3. Representation that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Impersonation in examinations for someone, in elections for some voter, for getting married representation of some other castes than the real castes etc. are the cases wherein usually this offence is committed.

In M.N.A. Achar v. Dr. D.L. Rajgopal 1977, the accused dishonestly induced the complainant and his daughter to go through the marriage ceremony personating himself to be a bachelor, whereas he was in fact, a married person having a wife. He was prosecuted for the offence of cheating by personation and was sentenced under Section 417 of IPC.

In Sushil Kumar v. State 1985, the accused who did not belong to the category of Scheduled Caste appeared in the IAS Examination as Scheduled Caste  candidate, cleared it, and got an appointment in the reserve quota on the basis of false representation. It was held guilty of cheating by personation under Section 416/417 of IPC.

Punishment for cheating: Under Section 417, 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.

This section punishes simple cheating. Where A dines at a hotel and goes away without paying bill or leaving his name and address he would be liable for cheating under this section.

In Ravichandran v. Mariyammal 1992, the petitioner and the respondent fell in love with each other and the petitioner made persistent efforts to enjoy respondent’s blissful company even prior to their marriage, Mariyammal appeared to have been evading such request all along. But one day the petitioner requested her to share the bed on the promise that he would marry her in due course. Believing on such representation Mariyammal complied with his request and consequently she became pregnant. The fact of pregnancy became known to one and all but the petitioner refused to marry her. It was held that the petitioner was liable for cheating under section 417 I.P.C. because but for the representation so made and the deception practiced on her, she would not have been a party for sharing her bed with the petitioner, which is said to have resulted in her becoming pregnant. It was further held that the contention of the petitioner, that since cheating figured in chapter relating to offences against property, the case cannot come within the purview of section 417 I.P.C., cannot be accepted.

In the case of Gibrail Diwan v. State of Maharashtra 1997, the accused prepared invitation letters for a cultural programme on the letter-head of a Minister but the letter did not bear the Minister’s signature. The Supreme Court held that it was not proper on the part of the Court below to convict the accused for cheating under Section 417 as no harm or damage to body, mind, reputation or property was caused to anyone due to this act of the accused.

He was therefore, acquitted by the Apex Court.

Section 419. Punishment for cheating by personation._-Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section  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 punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

COMMENT

When due to the actions of the cheat there is destruction or delivery of property or alteration or destruction of any valuable security this section applies. Simple cheating is covered by section 417.

It was held in Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, that for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation.

Main Ingredients :

1. deception of any person;
2. fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property; or
3. to consent that any person shall return any property; and
4. intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would do or omit.

Case Laws for section 420

In Kewal Krishan v. State of Punjab1986, the appellant obtained iron and steel under control order from Director Industries, to be used in his factory. He obtained the commodity on payment but utilized the same for a purpose different from that for which it was obtained. It was held that the accused was not guilty of the offence of cheating under section 420 because firstly, he obtained the commodity on payment of price, and secondly, when he made the application and acquired iron and steel, he had no intention to mis-utilize it. But if after having bona fide applied for the commodity and having obtained it the accused for some reason, thought of not using it in the factory, he cannot be said to have cheated the Industry Department. It must be established for an offence under this section that the accused had an intention to cheat right from the beginning.

In Poovalappil David v. State of Kerala 1989, the petitioners are Manager and Managing Partner of “Blue Diamond Theatre” which is licensed as an air-conditioned theatre. The petitioners used to switch off the air-conditioning unit after the entry of customers to save the electrical energy for illegally enriching themselves. It was held that: the action of petitioners amounts to cheating under section 420 of the Code because by advertising the theatre as air-conditioned the petitioners had dishonestly induced customers to purchase tickets by giving higher fare to have entry into the theatre.

____________________________________________________________