Cheating And Cheating By Personation
π 1. Definition and Legal Provisions
What is Cheating?
Cheating is defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as:
Dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property to any person,
Or to consent that any person shall retain any property,
Or intentionally deceiving any person to cause damage or harm to that person or to any other person.
Essential Ingredients of Cheating (Section 415 IPC):
Deception β causing one to believe something false.
Dishonesty β intention to cheat or defraud.
Inducement β the deception must cause the victim to act.
Delivery of property or consent to retain or causing harm/damage.
Punishment:
Section 420 IPC prescribes punishment for cheating:
Imprisonment up to 7 years,
Fine,
Or both.
Cheating by Personation
Defined under Section 416 IPC, it is a special form of cheating where the offender pretends to be someone else (real or imaginary) to cheat the victim.
Essential Elements:
Pretending to be some other person,
Deception by personation,
Inducing delivery of property or consent through deception.
Punishment:
Same as cheating β Section 420 IPC applies.
π‘οΈ 2. Important Case Laws on Cheating and Cheating by Personation
β 1. K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1991) 4 SCC 535
Facts:
The accused promised a job and took money but never intended to employ the victim.
Held:
Supreme Court held that mere promise without intention to perform is cheating.
Dishonest intention must be proved at the time of making the promise.
Significance:
Established the requirement of dishonest intention at the time of inducement.
β 2. R. v. Shambhu Nath (1920) 3 Cr LJ 81
Facts:
Accused impersonated a police officer to extract money.
Held:
Court held this constituted cheating by personation under Section 416.
Personation need not be of a real person; it can be imaginary.
Significance:
Early interpretation of personation in cheating.
β 3. Subramaniam Swamy v. Raju (1976) 4 SCC 1
Facts:
Fraudulent documents were used to obtain loans from banks.
Held:
Supreme Court held it was cheating by personation.
Dishonest intention and deception to induce delivery of property were proved.
Significance:
Clarified personation can be through impersonation or document fabrication.
β 4. State of Maharashtra v. Shetty (1992) 1 SCC 290
Facts:
Accused posed as government official and misappropriated funds.
Held:
Court convicted under Section 416 IPC.
Personation included impersonation of an official.
Significance:
Expanded personation to impersonation of official capacity.
β 5. Ram Gopal v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 10 SCC 317
Facts:
Accused pretended to be relative of the victim to cheat her of money.
Held:
Court held that mere representation as a relative is personation if done dishonestly.
Conviction under Sections 415 and 416 IPC.
Significance:
Broad interpretation of βpersonationβ to include fictitious relations.
β 6. Lalchand Khandelwal v. Union of India (2011) 10 SCC 1
Facts:
The accused falsely represented himself as an official to collect money.
Held:
Court held the act as cheating by personation.
Imposed rigorous punishment under Section 420.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the seriousness of cheating by personation.
β 7. Syed Moinuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2000) 7 SCC 47
Facts:
Accused cheated a person by forging documents and using false identity.
Held:
Supreme Court held this amounted to cheating by personation.
Highlighted requirement of proof of deception and dishonest intention.
Significance:
Emphasized that cheating by personation requires deception as to identity.
π§ 3. Key Judicial Principles
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Dishonest Intention at the Time of Act | Intention to cheat must be proved at the time of making false representation. |
| Deception of Identity | Personation means pretending to be another person, causing deception. |
| Inducement to Act | Victim must be induced to deliver property or consent based on deception. |
| Actual Delivery or Consent | Cheating involves actual delivery of property or consent to retain. |
| Punishment Under Section 420 IPC | Both cheating and cheating by personation attract the same punishment. |
π 4. Conclusion
Cheating and cheating by personation are serious offenses involving dishonesty and deception.
Courts focus on intention, deception, and inducement.
Personation enhances the gravity by adding a false identity.
These laws safeguard property rights and personal security against fraudsters.
RELATED Blog
0 comments