Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai v. State of Bombay

The appellant and two others were convicted by a

Magistrate under s. 420 read with ss. 511 and 34 of the

Indian Penal Code and each was sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for 12 months and a fine of Rs. 500 and in

default of payment, a further period of imprisonment for

four months. On appeal the accused persons were acquitted

by a Sessions Judge. The State then appealed to the High

Court at Bombay and the High Court set aside the order of

acquittal and restored the order passed by the learned

Magistrate. Accused No. 1 alone has appealed against the

order of the High Court to this Court.

The three accused persons approached one Ramanlal and the

third accused told Ramanlal that accused

Nos. 1 and 2 were proficient in duplicating currency notes

and they were prepared to do it for Ranlanal who should take

advantage of the offer. The third accused then asked

Ranianlal to think over the matter and promised to come

again. Ramanlal later mentioned this matter to his friend

Champaklal, the complainant, and the two decided to trap the

accused persons disbelieving their (professed) power to du-

plicate notes. The third accused again came as promised and

met Rtamanlal and Champaklal. Champaklal promised to find

currency notes for Rs. 20,000 for duplicating and a date was

fixed when it was to be done. Thereafter Ramanlal and

Champaklal informed the police. The police hid themselves

in the house of Ramanlal where it had been fixed with the

accused that the duplicating would be done. The three

accused arrived duly. The second accused spread bottles,

blank papers, etc., on a carpet and the first accused, the

appellant, asked Champaklal to produce the currency notes.

Champaklal who was carrying a bag supposed to contain the

promised currency notes worth Rs. 20,000, took out two

currency notes of Rs. 100 each from the bag and gave them to

the appellant. As soon as the appellant bad taken the

money, Champaklal gave the pre-arranged signal and the

police came into the room and arrested all the accused

persons. They were thereafter prosecuted for the offence of

an attempt to cheat upon a complaint lodged by Champaklal

with the result already mentioned.

Three points were argued by the learned advocate for the

appellant. First it was said that the charge was for an

attempt to cheat Champaklal but there was no evidence to

-,how that any representation bad been made by anyone to

Champaklal. The Courts below however found that such a

representation had been made and we think that the finding

is clearly supported by the evidence on record.

The next point taken was that there had been no attempt to

commit the offence of cheating but only a preparation to

commit that offence which was not punishable. It seems to

us clear that an attempt to commit the offence bad actually

been made. A fals representation had been made and a sum of

Rs. 200

had been obtained from Champaklal. These clearly are acts

done towards the commission of the offence within the

meaning of s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code. In fact the

making of the false representation is one of the ingredients

for an offence of cheating under s. 420 of the Indian Penal

Code. So also the delivery of property is another of such

ingredients. Both these ingredients took place in this case

and the accused brought them about. Therefore it cannot be

said that the accused had only made a preparation and not an

attempt to commit the offence.

The last point argued was that there was no attempt to cheat

because the complainant had not been deceived. It is true

that the complainant bad not been taken in. He had never

believed that the accused could actually duplicate currency

notes. He feigned belief only in order to trap the accused.

That however clearly makes no difference so far as an

attempt to cheat is concerned. The accused had attempted to

cheat the complainant. That they had failed in their

attempt is irrelevant in considering whether they had

committed the offence of attempting to cheat. This view of

the matter has been accepted in the High Courts uniformally.

In The Government of Bengal v. Umesh Chunder Mitter (1) it

was observed that " A man may attempt to cheat, although the

person he attempts to cheat is forewarned, and is therefore

not cheated." This is clearly the right view.

This appeal is entirely without merit and it is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

I.L.R. 16 Cal. 310,116.