http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: BASHIRBHAI MOHAMEDBHAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF BOMBAY.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19/04/1960

BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. BENCH: SARKAR, A.K. IMAM, SYED JAFFER

CITATION:  1960 AIR  979            1960 SCR  (3) 554

ACT:        Criminal Law-Attempt to commit offence-Attempt to cheat  The        complainant  whether  must be deceived--Indian  Penal  Code,        (XLV of 1860), s. 511.

HEADNOTE: The  offence  of attempting to cheat may be  committed  even though  the person attempted 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  obtained from the persons sought to be cheated by the  misrepresenta- tions,  there  is  an  attempt to cheat  and  not  merely  a preparation for committing that offence.

JUDGMENT:        CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 55  of        1955.        Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated        August 26, 1957, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal        No.  1208  of 1955, arising out of the  judgment  and  order        dated  March  31, 1955, of the Sessions  Judge,  Baroda,  in        Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1955.        M. K    Ramamurthi and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.        R.Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.        1960.  April 19.  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. 511 and  34  of  the        Indian  Penal  Code  and  each  was  sentenced  to  rigorous        imprisonment  for  12 months and a fine of Rs.  500  and  in        default  of  payment, a further period of  imprisonment  for        four  months.  On appeal the accused persons were  acquitted        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. 1 alone has appealed  against  the        order of the High Court to this Court.        The  three accused persons approached one Ramanlal  and  the        third accused told Ramanlal that accused        555

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

      Nos.  1 and 2 were proficient in duplicating currency  notes        and they were prepared to do it for Ranlanal who should take        advantage  of  the  offer.  The  third  accused  then  asked        Ranianlal  to  think over the matter and  promised  to  come        again.   Ramanlal later mentioned this matter to his  friend        Champaklal, the complainant, 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  Rtamanlal and Champaklal.  Champaklal promised to  find        currency notes for Rs. 20,000 for duplicating and a date was        fixed  when  it  was to be done.   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 accused  spread  bottles,        blank  papers, etc., on a carpet and the first accused,  the        appellant,  asked Champaklal to produce the currency  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  bad  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  Champaklal        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        -,how  that  any representation bad been made by  anyone  to        Champaklal.   The  Courts below however found  that  such  a        representation  had been made and we think that the  finding        is clearly supported 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  preparation  to        commit  that offence which was not punishable.  It seems  to        us clear that an attempt to commit the offence bad  actually        been made.  A fals representation had been made and a sum of        Rs. 200        556        had  been obtained from Champaklal.  These clearly are  acts        done  towards  the  commission of  the  offence  within  the        meaning  of  s. 511 of the Indian Penal Code.  In  fact  the        making of the false representation is one of the ingredients        for an offence of cheating under s. 420 of the Indian  Penal        Code.   So also the delivery of property is another of  such        ingredients.  Both these ingredients took place in this case        and the accused brought them about.  Therefore it cannot  be        said that the accused had only made a preparation and not an        attempt to commit the offence.        The last point argued was that there was no attempt to cheat        because  the complainant had not been deceived.  It is  true        that  the complainant bad not been taken in.  He  had  never        believed that the accused could actually duplicate  currency        notes.  He feigned belief only in order to trap the accused.        That  however  clearly  makes no difference  so  far  as  an        attempt to cheat is concerned.  The accused had attempted to        cheat  the  complainant.   That they  had  failed  in  their        attempt  is  irrelevant  in  considering  whether  they  had        committed the offence of attempting to cheat.  This view  of        the matter has been accepted in the High Courts uniformally.        In  The Government of Bengal v. Umesh Chunder Mitter (1)  it        was observed that " A man may attempt to cheat, although the        person he attempts to cheat is forewarned, and is  therefore        not cheated." This is clearly the right view.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

      This appeal is entirely without merit and it is dismissed.        Appeal dismissed.        I.L.R. 16 Cal. 310,116.        557