9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Conviction under s. 420 read with ss. 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code - Acquittal by Sessions Judge and appeal to High Court - Attempt to cheat, evidence of representation to complainant - Attempt vs. preparation to commit the offence - Deception of complainant not necessary for an attempt to cheat Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court involved the appeal of one accused against the High Court's decision to set aside the acquittal by a Sessions Judge and restore the conviction under s. 420 read with ss. 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case revolved around the accused persons' attempt to cheat the complainant by professing their ability to duplicate currency notes. The accused were caught in a police trap set up after the complainant informed the police about the proposed fraudulent activity. The appellant argued three main points in the appeal. Firstly, it was contended that there was no evidence of any representation made to the complainant to establish the charge of attempt to cheat. However, the Courts below found evidence supporting the representation, which was crucial for the offence of cheating under s. 420. The Court agreed with this finding, stating that the evidence on record supported it. Another argument raised by the appellant was that there was no attempt to commit the offence of cheating, but only a preparation, which is not punishable. The Court disagreed, emphasizing that the false representation made by the accused and the money obtained from the complainant constituted acts towards the commission of the offence, meeting the criteria of an attempt under s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court highlighted that making a false representation and delivering property were essential elements of the offence of cheating, both of which occurred in this case. The final point raised in the appeal was that there was no attempt to cheat because the complainant was not deceived, as he had feigned belief only to trap the accused. The Court clarified that the success or failure of the attempt to cheat was irrelevant in determining the commission of the offence. Even if the complainant was forewarned and not deceived, the accused could still be guilty of attempting to cheat. The Court referenced previous judgments to support this position, emphasizing that the accused's intent to cheat was sufficient to establish the offence. Consequently, the Court found the appeal to be devoid of merit and dismissed it, upholding the High Court's decision to convict the appellant for attempting to cheat the complainant.
|
