1893 (2) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Adequacy of evidence for conviction.
2. Witness testimony regarding the appellant's actions.
3. Legal interpretation of acts as preparation versus attempt to cheat.
4. Sufficiency of acts to constitute an attempt to cheat under the Indian Penal Code.
5. Validity of the abetment charge.
6. Legality of the sentence passed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Adequacy of Evidence for Conviction
The appellant argued that the evidence presented was unsatisfactory and inadequate to justify the conviction. However, the court noted that the matters of fact were distinctly within the jury's purview. The evidence was found satisfactory and sufficient by a majority of the jurors to support a conviction.

2. Witness Testimony Regarding the Appellant's Actions
One of the prosecution witnesses stated that no application had been made by the appellant for payment of interest or renewal of any Government promissory note. The appellant's acts were characterized as merely seeking information and sending a money order to obtain it. The court did not find this testimony sufficient to overturn the jury's decision.

3. Legal Interpretation of Acts as Preparation Versus Attempt to Cheat
The appellant contended that his actions amounted only to preparation for an attempt to cheat, which is not an offense under the Indian Penal Code. The court examined the jury instructions, which required proof of intent to cheat and acts done towards such cheating. The court emphasized that acts done with guilty intent, sufficiently important and proximate to the intended cheating, could constitute an attempt under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Sufficiency of Acts to Constitute an Attempt to Cheat Under the Indian Penal Code
The court reviewed the various acts committed by the appellant, including the use of false letters of administration and the preparation of a so-called copy of a lost note. The court found these acts to be sufficiently significant and proximate to the intended cheating to be considered an attempt. The court rejected the argument that only the final act towards the commission of the offense is punishable, affirming that any act done in the course of the attempt with intent to commit the offense falls under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. Validity of the Abetment Charge
The appellant did not address arguments specifically related to the abetment charge. The court upheld the conviction on this charge based on the evidence presented.

6. Legality of the Sentence Passed
The appellant argued that even if the conviction on the charge of abetment was valid, the sentence passed was illegal. However, no arguments were addressed to the court on this ground, and the court did not find any reason to consider the sentence illegal.

Conclusion
The court concluded that the conviction was proper and sound, rejecting the application for appeal to Her Majesty in Council. The court emphasized the broader interpretation of "attempt" under the Indian Penal Code compared to English law, affirming that acts done with intent towards the commission of an offense are punishable. The judgment highlighted the importance of evaluating the evidence and the intent behind the acts to determine whether they constitute an attempt to cheat.