Ram Jas v. State of U.P.

1971 SCR (2) 178 · AIR 1974 SC 1811 · (1970) 2 SCC 740

Court: Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)
Case: Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 1967
Decided: 11 September 1970
Bench: Vishishtha Bhargava, I.D. Dua (judgment by Vishishtha Bhargava, J.)
Citation: 1971 SCR (2) 178
Equivalent citations: AIR 1974 SC 1811; (1970) 2 SCC 740 (as printed in the judgment)
Provisions: Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 415 (cheating) and s. 419 (punishment for cheating by personation) (now Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, s. 318(1) and s. 319)

Headnote

Cheating · IPC s. 415 (BNS s. 318(1)) · Ingredients of cheating · Damage or harm to the person deceived

The case, in the Court's words

In recording this finding and conviction, the High Court lost sight of the fact that no such charge was framed against the appellant in the trial court. [SCR p. 180]

Held

The ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating are :-- (i) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him; (ii)(a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) In cases covered by (ii) (b), 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. [SCR p. 181]
That act done by the Oath Commissioner of attesting the affidavit could not, however, possibly cause any damage or harm to the Oath Commissioner in body, mind, reputation or property. The Oath Commissioner was obviously not induced to deliver any property to anybody by this wrong identification, nor was he induced to consent that any person should retain any property. Thus, the facts found did not constitute the offence of cheating at all. [SCR p. 182]
The conviction for an offence under section 419, substantively or with the aid of section 109, I.P.C., could only have been justified if the facts proved constituted all the ingredients of the offence of cheating. [SCR p. 182]
Further, in recording this conviction, the High Court did not even care to examine in detail whether all the ingredients of the offence had been established by the prosecution evidence. [SCR p. 181]

Result

In these circumstances, the appeal is allowed, the conviction under section 419 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. [SCR p. 183]

Editorial note: subsequent treatment

The ingredients of cheating set out in this judgment were reproduced as the settled statement of the law in V.P. Shrivastava v. Indian Explosives Ltd. (2010) and in Tilak Raj v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2016).

The headnote consists of extracts from the Court's judgment, selected by The Daily Bench for convenience. The selection is not part of the judgment, is not a law report and should not be cited. It may contain errors; rely on the official judgment. Library reference TDB-LL BNS-318/01 is our own cataloguing label and is not a citation.