N. DEVINDRAPPA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 07-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
N. DEVINDRAPPA 
r '--
v. 
STATEOFKARNATAKA 
MAY 7, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; s.420: 
Cheating-Dishonestly inducing complainant to pay certain amount of 
"""' 
c money promising to allot him a plot under a Scheme-Plot not allotted-
Complaint-Trial Court convicting him under s.420 IPC and sentenced him 
accordingly-Conviction affirmed by High Court by modifying the sentence-
On appeal, Held: Accused cheated many persons-Evidence of the complainant 
is corroborated by exhibits-documents bearing his signature-handwriting of 
D accused testified by the handwriting expert-Hence, offence under Section 
420 JPC is made out-Since Courts below recorded a finding of fact based 
on evidence on record, there is no reason to disagree with the same. 
Appellant, a retired Head Master, allegedly cheated the complainant by 
dishonestly inducing him to pay certain amount in cash assuring him to allot 
E a plot However, the plot was not allotted to him. Trial Court found him guilty 
of committing the offence under Section 420 IPC, convicted and sentenced 
him accordingly. The High Court while upholding the conviction of the 
appellant u/s. 420 IPC modified the sentence and instead sentenced him to 
undergo simple imprisonment of six months and to pay fine. Hence the present 
F 
appeal 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Appellant had cheated many persons and not merely the 
complainant The evidence of the complainant is corroborated by Ex. P 2 and 
G 
Ex. P 3 and these two documents bear the signatures of the accused and the 
complainant and the handwriting of the accused is testified by the handwriting 
expert. The issuance of the bogus receipts P 2 and P 3 by the accused given 
to the complainant, definitely amounts to cheating as also inducement of the 
complainant that he would be provided a plot by the accused in six months or 
a year. Since property includes money, hence, the offence under Section 420 
'>.-
H 
36 
./" 
t 
N. DEVINDRAPPA v. STA TEOF KARNATAKA (MARKANDEYKA TJU,J.] 
37 
l 
IPC is made out. There was definitely dishonest intention on the part of the A 
appellant. (Para 8) (38-D-FJ 
1.2. The Courts below have considered the evidence in great detail and 
recorded findings of fact based on the evidence on record and there is no reason 
to disagree with the same. [Para IO) (39-B) 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 686 of 
2007. 
). 
From the Fin:tl Judgment and Order dated 10.04.2006 of the High Court 
ofKarnataka, Bangalore in Cr!. R.P. No. 880 of2003. 
c 
Vikas Rojipura and E.C. Vidya Sagar for the Appellant. 
Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the 
Karnataka High Court dated 10.04.2006 in Criminal Revision Petition No. 880 
of2003. 
E 
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
4. The High Court while upholding the conviction of the appellant 
under Section 420 I.P.C modified the sentence and instead sentenced the 
appellant to undergo simple imprisonment of six months and to pay a fine of 
Rs.2,000/-, and in default to undergo a further period of two months simple F 
imprisonment. 
-.. 
5. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a retired Head Master 
of a school. He took voluntary retirement from service under the guise of 
doing social work. It is alleged that on 05.10.1995 and on 18.11.1995 the 
appellant cheated the complainant by dishonestly inducing him to pay Rs.2,000/ G 
- to the appellant in cash assuring the said complainant to allot him a plot, 
though the said property was not even the property of the appellant. 
, 
6. The case of the appellant was that he had no intention to cheat the 
·-' 
complainant ar.d the case is of civil nature. On the' other hand, die case of H 
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 6 S.C.R. 
A the prosecution was that the appellant accused was not the owner of the /and 
y 
and he made the complainant to believe that he was the owner of the land 
and for selling a plot of the land he received part of the sale consideration 
as advance from the complainant though he subsequently did not allot him 
any land despite repeated requests. 
B 
7. We have carefully perused the record as well as the judgments of the 
courts below. At the outset, we would like to say that an act can result in 
both civil and criminal liability. Hence, merely 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.