LexBASHIRBHAI MOHAMEDBHAI versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1960 April 19. Bashirbltai Mo!tamedbbai v. Stale of Bombay Sarkar J. 554 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 13ASHJlZl3HAl il!OHAillEDBHAl v. THE STATE OF BOMBAY. (JAFER brA"I and A. K. SARKAR, JJ.) [1960] Criminal Law-Attempt to commit offence-Attempt to cheat-The complainant whether nzust be deceived-Indian Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), s. 511. The offence of attempting to cheat n1ay be co1nmittcd even though the person attcrr ptcd to be cheated does not believe in the representations made to him and is not misled by them but only feigned belief in order to trap the offender. Where misrepresentations had been made and money obtain- ed from the persons sought to be cheated by the misrepresenta- tions, there is an atten1pt to cheat and not increly a preparation for con1mitting that offence. CRIMJ:->M. APPELLATE .Jt'RISDtCTJO:->: Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1955. Appeal by special leave [rom the judgment and orcler dated August 26, l 967, of the 13ombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1208 of l 955, arising out of the judgment and order dated March 81, I 'l:)5, of the Sessions Juclgc, 13aroda, i1t Cri1ni11;tl Appeal No. 13 of 195:). M. I<. R11mm11111!11i and ]. 13. Dar/aclwnjl, for the appellant. R. Gr111af1_athy Tyer and R. f-1. Dhe/)(/r, for the res- pondent. 1%0. April l!J. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR, J.-The appellant and two others were convicted by a Magistrate under s. 420 read with ss. !i l 1 and ~4 of the I nclian Penal Code and each "·as sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 12 months and a fine of Rs. -'iOO and in default: of payment, a further period of imprisonrnent for four months. On appeal the accused persons were acyuittecl 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. I alone has appealed against the order of the High Court to tbis Court. The three accused persons approached one Rmnan- lal and the third accused tokl Ramanlal that accused .. ., . - • '!'. .. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 555 Nos. 1 and 2 were proficient in duplicating currency notes and they were prepared to do it for Ramanal who should take advantage of the offer. The third accused then asked Ramanlal to think over the matter and promised to come again. Ramanlal later men-, tionecl this matter to his friend Champaklal, the com- plainant, 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 Ramanlal and Champaklal. Cham- pakbl promised to find currency notes for Rs .. 20,000 for duplicating and a elate was fixed when it was lo be clone. 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 accu~ed spread bottles, blank papers, etc., on a carpet and the first ,accused, the appel- lant, asked Champaklal to produce the currencv 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 had 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 Cbampaklal 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 show that any representation had been made by anyone to Champaklal. The Courts below howewr found that such a representation had been made and we think that the finding is clearly ,;upported 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 prep<tration to commit that offence which was not punishable. It seems to us clear that an attempt to commit the offence had actually been made. A false representation had been made, and a stim of Rs. 200 1960 Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai v. State nf BnmhqY, Sar/.:ar J. 196
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.