Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai vs The State Of Bombay

Rewritten Version Notice: This is a rewritten version of the original judgment.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1955

Decision Date: 19 April 1960

Coram: A.K. Sarkar, Syed Jaffer Imam

In this case, the Supreme Court of India reported the judgment delivered on 19 April 1960. The petitioner was Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai and the respondent was the State of Bombay. The bench was composed of Justice A.K. Sarkar and Justice Syed Jaffer Imam. The citation of the judgment was 1960 AIR 979 and 1960 SCR (3) 554, and the legal provision involved was Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with the attempt to commit an offence, specifically the attempt to cheat. The headnote stated that the offence of attempting to cheat could be established even when the person who was supposed to be cheated did not actually believe the false representation but only pretended to believe it in order to trap the offender; and that once misrepresentations had been made and money had been obtained, the conduct constituted an attempt to cheat rather than mere preparation.

The matter proceeded as a criminal appeal, designated Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1955, which reached the Supreme Court by special leave from an order dated 26 August 1957 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1208 of 1955. That High Court order itself arose from a judgment and order dated 31 March 1955 of the Sessions Judge, Baroda, in Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1955. Counsel for the appellant, identified as the representatives of the appellant, argued before the Supreme Court, while counsel for the respondent represented the State.

The factual background recorded that the appellant and two other persons had been convicted by a magistrate under Section 420 read with Sections 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Each was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for twelve months, a fine of Rs. 500, and, in default of payment, an additional imprisonment of four months. On appeal, the Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons. The State appealed the acquittal, and the Bombay High Court set aside the Sessions Judge’s order, restoring the magistrate’s convictions. Only the first accused, who was the appellant before this Court, contested the High Court’s decision.

The investigation revealed that the three accused approached a man named Ramanlal, claiming that the first and second accused possessed the skill to duplicate currency notes and were willing to do so for Ramanlal’s benefit. The third accused asked Ramanlal to consider the proposal and promised to return. Ramanlal conveyed the proposal to his friend Champaklal, the complainant, and together they decided to trap the accused by pretending to believe in their alleged ability to duplicate notes. The third accused returned as promised, met Ramanlal and Champaklal, and Champaklal promised to provide genuine currency notes worth Rs. 20,000 for duplication on a agreed date. After this arrangement, Ramanlal and Champaklal informed the police, who concealed themselves in Ramanlal’s house where the meeting was to occur. When the three accused arrived, the second accused spread bottles, blank papers and other items on a carpet, and the first accused asked Champaklal to produce the currency notes. Champaklal, who carried a bag allegedly containing the promised notes, took out two notes of Rs. 100 each and handed them to the appellant. As soon as the appellant received the money, Champaklal gave a pre‑arranged signal, and the police entered the room and arrested all three accused. They were subsequently prosecuted for the offence of attempt to cheat based on the complaint lodged by Champaklal.

During the hearing, the counsel for the appellant advanced three main arguments. The first argument was that the charge of attempting to cheat Champaklal could not stand because there was no evidence that any representation had been made to Champaklal by the accused. The lower courts, however, found that such a representation had indeed been made and that the prosecution evidence established the elements of the offence.

It was recorded that a meeting had been arranged with the accused in which they would carry out the duplication of currency notes. The three accused persons arrived at the appointed place as scheduled. The second accused spread bottles, blank papers and other items on a carpet, creating a setting for the alleged act. The first accused, who was the appellant, then asked the complainant, Champaklal, to produce the currency notes that had been promised. Champaklal, who was carrying a bag that was said to contain the promised notes worth twenty thousand rupees, took out two notes of one hundred rupees each from the bag and handed them to the appellant. As soon as the appellant received the money, Champaklal gave a pre‑arranged signal, and the police, who were concealed in the room, entered and arrested all three accused. Following the arrest, the accused were prosecuted for the offence of attempting to cheat, based on a complaint lodged by Champaklal, as had already been described. The counsel for the appellant put forward three main arguments. Firstly, it was contended that the charge of attempting to cheat Champaklal could not stand because there was no evidence that any representation had been made to him. The courts below, however, found that a representation had indeed been made and held that this finding was clearly supported by the material on record. Secondly, it was argued that the accused had only prepared to commit cheating, which by itself was not punishable, and that no actual attempt had occurred. The Court disagreed, observing that a false representation had been made and that a sum of two hundred rupees had been obtained from Champaklal. These acts fell within the scope of section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, which defines an attempt to commit an offence. Moreover, the making of a false representation is an essential ingredient of the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and the delivery of property is another essential element. Both of these ingredients had occurred in the present case, and the accused had caused them to happen. Consequently, it could not be said that the accused merely prepared for the crime without attempting it. Finally, the appellant’s counsel asserted that there was no attempt to cheat because the complainant had not been deceived. The Court accepted that Champaklal had never actually believed that the accused could duplicate currency notes; he had feigned belief solely to trap them. Nevertheless, the Court held that this fact did not affect the existence of an attempt to cheat. The accused had indeed attempted to cheat the complainant, and the failure of the attempt was irrelevant to the liability for the offence of attempting to cheat. This position has been uniformly accepted by the High Courts. In the earlier decision of The Government of Bengal v. Umesh Chunder Mitter, it was observed that “A man may attempt to cheat, although the person he attempts to cheat is forewarned, and is therefore not cheated.” The Court affirmed that this principle applied appropriately to the present case.

The Court affirmed the view that had been expressed in the preceding discussion and held that the appellant’s petition did not raise any substantive issue capable of sustaining the relief sought. After examining the material placed before it, the Court found that the arguments advanced by the appellant were without merit and that no error could be identified in the decision of the lower tribunal. Consequently, the Court concluded that the appeal was entirely without merit and ordered that it be dismissed in its entirety. The order of dismissal was entered as the final disposition of the appeal. The judgment was subsequently reported in the Indian Law Reports, Calcutta series, volume sixteen, at page three hundred ten, paragraph one hundred sixteen.