Central University South Bihar

Project on Cheating

Supervisor: Dr.Pawan Kumar Mishra

Made by:
Name: Jagarla Rojarani
Course:BALLB(Hons.)
CUSB1813125036

1
[Title]
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, praises and thanks to the God, the Almighty, for his showers of
blessings throughout my research work to complete the research successfully.

I would like to express my deep and sincere gratitude to my research supervisor,

Dr. Pawan Kumar Mishra ,Head of Law Department in Central University of South Bihar,
for giving me the opportunity to do research and providing invaluable guidance throughout
this research. His dynamism, vision, sincerity and motivation have deeply inspired me.
He has taught me the methodology to carry out the research and to present the research
works as clearly as possible. It was a great privilege and honor to work and study under
his guidance. I am extremely grateful for what he has offered me. I would also like to
thank him for his friendship, empathy, and great sense of humor. I am extending my
heartfelt thanks to his wife, family for their acceptance and patience during the discussion
I had with him on research work and thesis preparation.
I am extremely grateful to my parents for their love, prayers, caring and sacrifices for
educating and preparing me for my future.

Jagrala Rojarani

CUSB1813125036

B.A.LLB(hons.)

2
[Title]
TABLE OF CONTENT:
Content. Page no.

 Introduction 04
 Section 415: Cheating 04
 Section 416: Cheating by Personation. 06
 Section 417: Punishment for Cheating 06
 Section 418: cheating with knowledge 06
 Section 419: Punishment for cheating by personation. 07
 Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property 07
 Modes of cheating 08
 How Cheating is to be proved 09
 Distinction between mere 'breach of contract' and the 'offence of cheating'12
 Legal Remedies for the offence of Cheating 14
 Cases 14
 Conclusion 21
 Bibliography 22

3
[Title]
 INTRODUCTION

As we see cheating is a criminal offence and it has myriad of crimes associated with it. It can be
seen in various forms. In the layman’s language cheating can be described as a dishonest or unfair
act done to gain advantage over the other. Cheating is saying or doing something dishonesty which
makes someone believe that something is true when it is not. It is a term we often hear in our daily
lives but don’t know its legal aspects. To make a more clear understanding from legal point of
view, this article would be dealing with cheating and its constituents, punishment for this offence
and other legal issues related to it. Further, this article will also discuss the legal remedies available
for this offence.

Cheating(Section415-420ofIPC)
Indian penal code deals with this offence under section 415 to 420.

Section 415: Cheating

Cheating is defined under this section. It says that,

“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
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.
Illustration: A, sold an article to B saying that it is made up of gold when it is not, intentionally
deceives him and thus commits the offence of cheating.

4
[Title]
Constituents of Cheating:

Acting Dishonestly

The term ‘acting dishonestly’ has been defined under section 24 of Indian Penal Code.
It is defined as, “when the doing of any act or not doing of any act causes wrongful gain of property
to one person or a wrongful loss of property to a person, the said act is done dishonestly.”

Property

Property has a much wider meaning. It does not only include money but other things as well which
can be measured in the terms of money. The property should be in a complete ownership of the
person and he must have the full right to enjoy its possession.

Fraudulently

Being fraudulent means which involves deception mainly criminal deception. It is characterized
by fraud. According to section 25 “a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing
with intent to defraud but not otherwise.”

Mens Rea

Mens rea is the intention or action to constitute a crime. It is a mental state of an offender while
committing a crime. It has to be proved beyond any doubt that the accused has actively contributed
in a crime and that crime has affected another person’s property.

Section 416: Cheating by Personation.

A person is said to cheat by personation when,

“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”.

5
[Title]
Explanation -The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary
person.

Illustration: A, by falsely pretending to be a government official deceives B, and induces B to

sell his property to him for which he is not going to pay. A cheats by personation.

Section 417: Punishment for Cheating

Cheating is punishable under this section with imprisonment up to 1 year or fine or both.
Imprisonment depends upon the quantum of the act done. If the act is not that grave, imprisonment
won’t be imposed and will charge with fine only. But when the act done is so grave that merely
fine and imprisonment won’t compensate, then the person will be charged with a mandatory
imprisonment of 7 years along with fine.

Section 418: Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest
offender is bound to protect.

Under this section “Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful
loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was found, either
by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.
Explanation: Causing loss to the aggrieved party whose interest is to be protected by the offender,
omits to do so with wrongful intention.

Section 419: Punishment for cheating by personation.

Under this section, “Whoever “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.”

6
[Title]
Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

This section deals with offences which are committed by a person by cheating another person and
inducing him to deliver his property to the offender.
According to this section “Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived
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”.

Constituents of Section 420:

The ingredients as to constitute an offence under this section are:

1. Cheating,
2. Dishonest intention to take the property of another person or induce him to deliver the
property to alter, destroy or make any changes in the valuable security, or
3. Deceitful or malice intention.

Modes of cheating

There are various ways through which the offence of cheating can be committed. They are:

Caste:
when a person represents himself as a member of a caste to which he do not belong is
committing an offence of cheating.

 Showing false accounts:

when a person shows false accounts of himself or of some other person to clear a debt, then
is said to commit the offence of cheating.

 Creating false evidence:

when a person gives false evidence regarding some event then he can be held liable for the
offence of cheating.

7
[Title]
 1. False professional qualification: when
a person shows false professional qualification to acquire a post or job then he is said to
commit the offence of cheating.

How Cheating is to be proved?

You have to prove that there was an intention to cheat at the time of making the misrepresentation;
and this fact is to be proved on the basis of all the subsequent conduct as acts and omissions of the
accused. Therefore, all the acts and omissions of the accused must be clearly and legibly set out
right from the date of making of false representation, till the filing of the complaint.

It must be shown that there is a failure of the promise which was made. It must be shown that there
was no effort on the part of accused to perform his promise. The test of prudent man must be
applied to appreciate the evidence on record.

Who is a Prudent Man?

A prudent man is a wise man but may not be a genius. A prudent man who is not in haste. He is
not influenced by his emotions and act after weighing the circumstance. He rethinks and willing
to learn. He struggles. He is willing to see the point of view, which was never in his mind. He may
not be learned but has robust common sense and has basic instinct that moves man and woman.
The said definition of prudent man calls upon the judge to become realistic and practical. Good
faith anticipates an honest effort to discover the facts upon which the exercise of power rests.

Cognizance of an offence under Section 420

The offence is cognizable and falls under the category of Non Bailable. It is triable by Magistrate
of the First Class and therefore FIR or Application u/s 156(3) or Private Complaint u/s 200 may
be preferred.

Punishment of an offence under Section 420

The punishment which is given under section 420 of IPC for the offence is imprisonment for a
term which may extend to seven years, and also be liable to fine.

8
[Title]
Distinction between mere 'breach of contract' and the 'offence of cheating'

Distinction depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which must be
judged by his subsequent act but of which the subsequent act is not the sole standard. Mere breach
of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest
intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction that is the time when the offence is said
to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is the substance of the offence. It is
necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise
to hold a person guilty for the offence of cheating. From his mere failure to keep up promise
consequently such a culpable intention cannot be presume right at the beginning, that is when he
made the promise.

9
[Title]
When does breach of contract amount to cheating?
Cheating
It is mentioned u/s 415 to 420 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860.
It is dealt under criminal law.
It is a dishonest act done in order to gain
advantage over the other.
In it intention to deceive exists at the time
when inducement is made. In the beginning,
only the person must have fraudulent intention
regarding the promise to constitute it as an
offence of cheating.
10
[Title]
Breach of Contract
It is mentioned u/s 73 of Indian
Contract Act, 1872.
It is dealt under civil law.
It is a cause of action which occurs
when the binding agreement is not
performed.
In it the malice intention does not exist
from the beginning of the contract.
The breach is done due to some
reasons at the time when it is about to
get binding
Case Law:

S.W. Palanitkar V. State of Bihar- 2001(10) TMI 1150- Supreme Court

Under this case Supreme court held that to convict a person for the offence of cheating there should
be pre-existing dishonest or fraudulent intention of the person from the beginning but in case of
Breach of Contract the dishonest intention is not present in the beginning of the agreement

Fraud/ Cheating

Cheating Fraud

Implications of fraud are mentioned in

It is mentioned u/s 415 to 420 of Indian Penal
section 421, 422, 423, 424 of Indian
Code, 1860.
Penal Code, 1860.

It is a deliberate deception to secure

It is a dishonest act done in order to gain
unfair advantage over of the other. It
advantage over the other.
is done to gain by another’s loss.

In order to maintain suit for cheating there are

In order to maintain the suit for fraud
two situations which are necessary subscribed
intention to deceive is sufficient.
in section 415 i.e. deception and inducement.

11
[Title]
 Fraud basically relates more to
Cheating is not limited only to contracts.
contracts.

Dishonour of Cheque/ Cheating

Dishonour of Cheque is maintained u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act while the offence of
Cheating is mentioned u/s 420 of Indian Penal Code. But in some cases Dishonor of Cheque can
be taken as an offence of cheating.

For example, If the person who has issued the cheque has already closed his bank account but still
issues a cheque to some other person in exchange of payment of goods he has purchased from that
person, in this case the person issuing the cheque is dishonest as he is aware of the fact that the
cheque will get bounce. The person has deceived the other by doing so as he knew from the start
about the consequences of the same. So, this may be an example where offence u/s 420 can be
made out for dishonour of cheque.

The offences under Section 138 N.I. Act and Section 420 IPC are two different offences altogether.
Whether this offence or that offence is made out would depend on the facts of each case. You’ll
have to check the ingredients of which particular offence are satisfied from the facts of your case.

Legal Remedies for the offence of Cheating

Jurisdiction

Under section 2 of IPC it is stated that “Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code
and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall
be guilty within India.”

A national of Pakistan, falsely represented himself as the businessman of Bombay. He assured the
complainant that he is having good quality of products and he would be glad to sell them to the
complainant if he transfers the money to him. The complainant transferred the money but did not

12
[Title]
receive in revive anything in return. It was held that as the offence was committed in Bombay even
though the accused is a national of Pakistan and was not physically present in India, the courts of
Bombay has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 2 of IPC.

Cognizance of the offence

Offence of cheating is cognizable and non bailable. The trial is done by magistrate of first class.
FIR or Application can be filed u/s 156(3) and In case of private complaint u/s 200.

Punishment

Minor cases

When the offence of cheating is not that severe or is a simple case of cheating then the offender is
punished with imprisonment for a term of 1 year or fine or both.
Example: ‘A’ promised ‘B’ to sell his property but instead of that sold it to ‘C’. This case can be
considered under it.

Severe cases

It covers the cases where cheating is done by guardian, trustee, solicitor, agents, manager of Hindu
family etc. In such cases punishment is imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both.

Cheating by personation

In the cases where the offence of cheating has been committed along with personation then the
person if guilty u/s 416 and punished u/s 419 for imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both.

13
[Title]
Case law on cheating:

HATIRAM NAIK v. SURENDRA KUMAR MALIK (1986) crLj 1271(ori)

The case of the opposite party as unfolded in the complaint petition is that on 1-12-1982 when the
accused was moving in the bus stand, he met the complainant and they talked with each other since
both of them were known to each other for a long time. In course of the said talk, the complainant
enquired from the accused as to whether good rice is available in the weekly market at
Dharamgarh, to which the accused replied in the affirmative. The complainant then wanted to
purchase rice worth Rs. 400/- for his domestic consumption and the accused told him that if money
was paid he would purchase the same from the market and keep it with him. The complainant
thereafter handed over Rs. 400/- to the accused and told him that he would go and fetch the rice
from the accused at Dharamgarh. Thereafter on several occasions the complainant went to the
accused but the accused concealed himself. Lastly, on 22-3-1983, the complainant met the accused
at Dharamgarh and when the complainant asked the accused about his money, the accused avoided
and ran away saying that he had much work and would meet the complainant later oh. On these
allegations, a prayer was made that cognizance may be taken of the offence under Section
420, Penal Code.

Mr. Misra for the petitioner contends that all the allegations made in the complaint petition as well
as the initial statement of the complainant recorded by the Magistrate taken on their face value do
not make out the offence under Section 415, Penal Code, and necessarily, therefore, the order
taking cognisance of the offence under Section 420, Penal Code, is invalid and should be quashed
by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the opposite party-
complainant, however, submits that the allegations in the complaint petition as well as the initial
statement recorded by the Magistrate taken together clearly establish the offence under Section
420, Penal Code, and cognisance having been taken thereon, the extraordinary power of this Court
under Section 482, Cr. P.C., should not be invoked to quash the same.

14
[Title]
Recent case:

Komal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 May, 2018

Bench: Abhai Kumar

The opposite party no.2 lodged an FIR on 2.7.2011 against the applicants in reference to an
occurrence, which is said to have taken place on 16.5.2005. The investigating officer after
investigation submitted the charge sheet against the applicants.
It is submission of learned counsel for the applicants that investigating officer has not investigated
the matter properly and fairly and has not taken into consideration the evidence of witnesses,
namely, Naseem Ahmad and Sageer Ahmad. It is further submission of learned counsel for the
applicants that dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and initiation of criminal
proceeding is blatant misuse of process of law and the same is being initiated just to pressurize the
applicants to extract the money. It is alleged that an agreement entered between the applicant no.1
and husband of opposite party no.2 and if there is any dispute in regard to that, then remedy of
civil nature is available to the husband of opposite party no.2. It is further submission of learned
counsel for the applicants that no agreement ever took place as has been mentioned in the FIR.
The agreement is forged and the same is being fabricated by the husband of opposite party no.2,
who is Lekhpal. The applicant no.1 never took cash from the opposite party no.2 and other
applicants have no concerned regarding the aforesaid agreement. It is admitted by learned counsel
for the applicants that civil and criminal proceeding are going on between the parties and
Bhupendra Singh, husband of opposite party no.2 just to blackmail the applicants, have fabricated
the forged agreement.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the contention of learned counsel
for the applicants and submitted that investigating officer after finding evidence sufficient against
the applicants, submitted the charge sheet and besides the agreement, there is another incident that
is being mentioned in the FIR regarding threat extended by the applicants to the opposite party
no.2, which is a disputed question of fact and the same cannot be decided by this Court in its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Although, the agreement is being denied by the applicants, even if it is deemed to be true, then the
remedy available to the opposite party no.2, is civil in nature and agreement ought to have been
enforced in a civil proceeding. If any criminal proceeding is being drawn just to vent the remedy

15
[Title]
that is being available in civil proceeding, then same is ought to be considered very carefully and
it is the duty of the Court to protect the interest of a genuine person.
So far as first part of FIR is concerned, which is related to the agreement, it can very well be said
that dispute in this regard is civil in nature and no offence under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C is
made out. The crux of Section 420 as has been mentioned in Section 415 I.P.C., the intention of a
person entering into an agreement should not be malafide from the very beginning and if it is not
being proved that intention of a person is malafide at the time of entering into an agreement, an
offence under Section 420 I.P.C. cannot be said to have been made out. Similarly, certain money
is being given for the purpose of any business under an agreement, then same can also not be said
that any offence under Section 406 I.P.C. is made out. It is not so that criminal proceeding can be
set into motion by producing witnesses in support of the complaint. It is a pious duty of the Court
whether the allegations made therein are genuine or baseless or frivolous.

Abhayanand Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 24 April, 1961

The appellant applied to the Patna University for permission to appear at the 1954 M. A.
Examination in English as a private candidate, representing that he was a graduate having obtained
his B.A. Degree in 1951 and that he had been teaching in a certain school. In support of his
application, he attached certain certificates purporting to be from the Headmaster of the School,
and the Inspector of Schools. The University authorities accepted the appellant's statements and
gave permission and wrote to him asking for the remission of the fees and two copies of his
photograph. The appellant furnished these and on April 9, 1954, proper admission card for him
was despatched to the Headmaster of the School.
Information reached the University about the appellant's being not a graduate and being not a
teacher. Inquiries were made and it was found that the certificates attached to the application were
forged, that the appellant was not a graduate and was not a teacher and that in fact he had been de-
barred from taking any University examination for a certain number of years on account of his

16
[Title]
having committed corrupt practice at a University examination. In consequence, the matter was
reported to the police which, on investigation, prosecuted the appellant. The appellant was
acquitted of the charge of forging those certificates, but was convicted of the offence of attempting
to cheat inasmuch as he, by false representations, deceived the University and induced the
authorities to issue the admission card, which, if the fraud had not been detected, would have been
ultimately delivered to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two contentions. The
first is that the facts found did not amount to the appellant's committing an attempt to cheat the
University but amounted just to his making preparations to cheat the University. The second is that
even if the appellant had obtained the admission card and appeared at the M. A. Examination, no
offence of cheating under s. 420, Indian Penal Code, would have been committed as the
University, would not have suffered any harm to its reputation. The idea of the University suffering
in reputation is too remote. The offence of cheating is defined in s. 415, Indian Penal Code, which
reads:

"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 omis- sion causes or is likely to cause damage
or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat'.

BAKSHISH SING DHALIWAL v. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 1967SC 752 1SCR 211

There were all together four trials before a Special Tribunal originally constituted under Ordinance
29 of 1943. In these four trials, the appellant was charged for having committed ten different
offences of cheating by making representations to the Government of Burma and obtaining
payments of money to the extent of over Rs. 6 lakhs which included payments in respect of works
which had not been carried out by him as a contractor, though he claimed that the work had been
done and he was entitled to payment in respect of those works.

17
[Title]
The facts which are relevant for the decision of these appeals fall under a very short compass. In
the year 1942, the Government of Burma and the Allied Forces operating there were compelled to
leave Burma as a result of the Japanese invasion. For purposes of evacuation from Burma and the
defence of that country, the Government of Burma and the army had to execute certain works of
the nature of construction of roads, repairs and construction of bridges, strengthening and repairing
of old tracks and converting railway lines into motor roads. Some of these works were executed
by the army itself, while others were entrusted to contractors.
After the evacuation, the Government of Burma was located at Simla. Due to the disturbed
conditions, no exact records were ,available of the works done by the various contractors and
consequently, in August 1942, the Government of Burma issued ail advertisement inviting claims
from contractors who had executed works or had supplied materials in Burma during this period
and had not yet been paid. The appellant submitted a number of claims in respect of various works
which he claimed had been executed by him as well as for supply of materials. These claims were
in the form of bills and were in respect of works which he claimed had been carried out under the
instructions of various units of the army. These bills were sent for verification to three different
Officers, Henderson, Nasse and Karam 'Singh; and after -their verification, payments were made
to the appellant in respect of those bills. In one or two cases, the payments were only partial; while
in other cases the entire claims as recommended by those officers were paid off.
In the case of the appellant, it was found that he had put in 20 claims for various works alleged to
have been done or materials supplied. Sixteen of these claims aggregated to an amount of Rs.
16,31,808/ out of which a sum of Rs. 6,87,173/ was paid by means of cheques issued by the office
of the Controller of Military Accounts working with the Burma Government situated at Kohlapore.
Subsequently, suspicions of the Government of Burma were aroused concerning many of the
claims made by various contractors including the claims made by the appellant, and it was
discovered that some of the claims were false and bogus. Consequently, further investigations were
made and thereafter the appellant was prosecuted in respect of ten different charges. Since there
were a number of such cases to be tried, Special Tribunals were constituted by issuing Ordinance
No. 29 of 1943; and two of these Tribunals were located at Lahore. The cases against the appellant
were entrusted to one of these Tribunals.
Before the Tribunal, the ten charges aganist the appellant were given Cases Nos. 21 to 26 and 31
to 34. Some of these cases were, however, tried together with the result that ultimately, there were

18
[Title]
four trials in which the appellant was tried in respect of these ten ,charges. The Special Tribunal
convicted the appellant in respect of -all the charges; but on appeal, the High Court upheld the
conviction in respect of three charges only. These charges were part of charge No. 21, charge No.
22 and charge No. 26. In respect of the other charges, the High Court recorded a finding that the
prosecution had failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the claims put forward by the
appellant were bogus and in respect of works not done by him or materials not supplied by him,
so that the appellant was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
The appellant was tried for charges Nos. 21, 22 and 23 in the one single trial by the Special
Tribunal, while charge No. 26 was the subject-matter of a different trial. His conviction in respect
of part of charge No. 21, charge No. 22 and charge No. 26 having been upheld by the High Court,
the appellant has thus filed two appeals Nos. 150 & 151/1962 in this Court. He was acquitted of
part of charge No. 21 and charge No. 23 which were tried together with charge No. 22 in one trial;
and similarly, he has been acquitted of other charges also in the other three trials. The four State
appeals before us are against these orders of acquittal recorded by the High Court in respect of the
charges which were the subject-matter of four different trials.

SUSHIL KUMAR DATTA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (1985) cr Lh 1948 cal.

The prosecution case is that Shri Sushil Kumar Datta one of the present petitioners before us
appeared in the Indian Administrative Service Examination in 1967 and in the application form of
the said examination he mis-represented his caste by falsely declaring himself to be a 'Namasudra'
and by such false declaration he claimed to be belonging to a scheduled caste community although
as a matter of fact, he actually belonged to 'Barojibi' caste commonly known as 'Baroi' which is
not a scheduled caste in West Bengal. By such mis-representation as to his caste he obtained the
advantage of the relaxed standard of the examination prescribed for scheduled caste candidates.
On the result of the examination held in 1967, Sri Datta was selected by the Union Public Service
Commission for appointment in a Class I Central Service and he was actually appointed by the
Govt. of India in Class I Customs and Central Excise Service against a vacancy reserved for the
scheduled caste candidates. Grievance of the prosecution is that had Shri Sushil Kumar Dutta not
mis-represented his caste he would not have been admitted in the said examination as a scheduled
caste candidate by the Union Public Service Commission and also he would not have been

19
[Title]
appointed in the Class I Customs and Central Excise Service against a vacancy reserved for the
scheduled caste candidates. Thus, according to the prosecution by making false representation as
to his caste Sushil Kumar Datta cheated the Union Public Service Commission and the Govt. of
India as well and is therefore guilty of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. This is the subject
matter of G.R. Case No. 3059/75(B).
3. Similarly, so the prosecution case runs, Shri Sushil Kumar Dutta appeared in the Indian
Administrative Service in the year 1969 falsely mis-representing himself to be belonging to the
scheduled caste community. On the result of such mis-representation of caste, the Union Public
Service Commission, New Delhi admitted him in the Indian Administrative Service Examination
in 1969 and issued in his favour an Admit Card for the said examination. On the result of 1969,
examination, Shri Datta was selected by the Union Public Service Commission for appointment in
the Indian Administrative Service under relaxed standard for scheduled caste candidates. The
Govt. of India thereafter appointed Shri Dutta in the Indian Administrative Service in 1970 against
a vacancy reserved for scheduled caste candidates and posted him in West Bengal Cadre of the
I.A.S. Had the accused not falsely claimed to be a member of the scheduled caste, he would not
have been selected in 1969 against the vacancy reserved for scheduled castes. Thus by making
false representation as to his caste Shri Datta cheated the Union Public Service Commission and
the Govt. of India and as such is guilty of the offence under Section 420 I.P.C. This is the subject
matter of G.R. Case No. 3059/75(A). Thus for the alleged cheating on the two occasions that is to
say, in 1967 and again in 1969, the abovementioned two separate cases were started against the
accused. In both these cases, charges under Section 420 I.P.C. were framed against Shri Dutta. The
accused pleaded not guilty in both the cases. His defence in both the cases was that he belonged to
'Baroi caste' which is a sub-caste of 'Namasudra's in West Bengal and Namasudra is a scheduled
caste under the Constitution of India. Shri Dutta denied that he made any false representation
whatsoever as alleged by the prosecution. He denied that he cheated the Union Public Service
Commission or the Govt. of India. In both the cases, the trial court concerned convicted Shri Dutta
of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years and also to a fine of Rs. 1,000/-
in default for further six months R.I. Shri Dutta preferred two appeals before the learned Sessions
Judge, Alipore. Shri P. G. Ghatak, the then Additional Sessions Judge, Alipore heard the two
Criminal Appeals namely, Appeal Nos. 40 and 41 of 1980 analogously and by his order dated 7-
8-82 upheld that conviction and affirmed the sentences as passed by the learned trial Judge.

20
[Title]
Conclusion:
Cheating is an offence under which a person induces the other to deliver the property or
commission or omission of an act done on the part of the offender with the intention of deceiving
the person. Mainly two elements are necessary to constitute the offence of cheating i.e. deception
and inducement. Cheating is confused with various other civil and criminal offences but it differs
from each of them in some or the other way.

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 fine.

Distinction between mere 'breach of contract' and the 'offence of cheating' is a fine one. It depends
upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent
conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give
rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at
the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed.
Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating,
it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of makot be
presumed.

Distinction Between 'Cheating' and 'Misrepresentation'

A mere representation, which is neither claimed or alleged to be dishonest or fraudulent would not
attract the charge of cheating only because the complainant parts with his money on the basis
thereof.
In popular culture, the term "420" is used in India to refer to a confidence trickster. This section
was also in use in other neighbouring countries such as Pakistan, Myanmar, where the
term 420 persists in popular culture to this date. In the Nigerian Criminal Code, the same offence
is covered by article 419, which has now lent its name to the advance fee fraud. The title of a two

21
[Title]
popular Hindi films - Chachi 420 (in English: Trickster Aunt, a 1997 remake of Mrs. Doubtfire)
and Shri 420 (in English: Mr. 420, a 1955 film), are direct references to Section 420 of the IPC.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Books:
 .K.D. Gaur, “A Textbook on Indian Penal Code”
 S.N. Misra, “Indian Penal Code”
 P S A Pillai “Criminal Law”

22
[Title]