Legal provisions regarding Punishment for Cheating under section 417 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Punishment for Cheating:
“Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both.”
Image Source: worldwidewomengroup.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Chinthamani v. Dyaneshwar [1974 CrLJ 542 Bombay], the accused sold the property to the complainant. In fact, they said property was already mortgaged to some other person. The accused concealed the mortgage and registered it in favour of the complainant and received full consideration. It was held that it was a cheating offence.
In M.N.A Aachar V. Dr. D.L. Raja Gopal [1977 CrLJ 228 Kant], the accused was already married. He represented himself to be a bachelor and married with the complainant’s daughter. The accused was held guilty of offence of cheating by personation and also under Section 494 (Bigamy).
In Rex v. Narain Rao [1948 ALJ 303] a debtor sent to his creditor a postal cover insured for Rs. 70. The creditor took delivery after signing the postal receipt and when the cover was opened it was found to contain seven one-rupee notes and four blank sheets. The debtor also called upon the creditor to give credit for Rs. 70 sent in insured cover. It was held that the debtor was guilty of cheating and not merely of an attempt to cheat.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In R v. Miller [(1993) RTR 6 (CA)], where the accused falsely represented to foreigners at an airport that he was a taxi-driver that his car was a taxi and that he would charge a reasonable fare, he was charged with obtaining property by deception. The accused contended that there was no deception because while paying they knew the reality and did not pay while under deception. Rejecting this contention, the court convicted him.
In Ram Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar [AIR 1998 SC 296] an employee of the Life Insurance Corporation was accused of having introduced fake and false insurance proposals to the Corporation. The proposals were forged in the name of non-existent persons by the accused in his own handwriting.
The accused sought to take advantage of his inflated business by introducing the fake proposals to gain promotions. Although, the accused himself did not gain any benefit, there was loss to the LIC for issuance of insurance policies, even if this was only a negligible sum.
The conviction of the accused for the offence of conspiracy to cheat was upheld by the Supreme Court as such fake or forged proposals are bound to affect the reputation of the insurance company.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In State v. Ramados Naider [AIR 1970 SC 843], the accused persons had obtained loans from the Land Development Bank for digging new wells in their agricultural lands and purchasing new oil engines without actually doing any of these things.
Though the bank had not suffered any loss on account of these transactions, as the loans were fully covered by the security of immovable properties and the loans had been repaid in full, the accused persons were convicted for cheating under Sections 415 and 420 as the accused persons obtained loans from the bank by making fraudulent representation to the bank.
In Jibrial Diwan v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1997 SC 3424], certain letters were prepared on the letterhead of a Minister by the accused by which actors were invited to a cultural show. Letters did not carry the signature of the Minister. The court said that the act of the accused did not cause nor was likely to cause any harm to any person in mind or body. His conviction under Sections 415 and 417 was held to be not proper.
The offence under Section 417 is non-cognizable, but warrant should, ordinarily, issue in the first instance. It is bailable and compoundable with the permission of the court, and is triable by any Magistrate.
