Holding

The appellant's dishonest inducement and issuance of bogus receipts amount to cheating under Section 420 IPC, and the conviction is upheld.

Summary

The appellant, a retired headmaster, induced a complainant to pay Rs.2,000 as advance for a plot of land that he did not own, issuing bogus receipts and promising allotment within months. The trial court convicted him under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for cheating, and the Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction while modifying the sentence to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine. On appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that his act was civil in nature and that there was no dishonest intention. The Court examined the evidence, including the receipts bearing both parties' signatures and a handwriting expert's testimony, and found that the appellant had repeatedly cheated multiple persons, demonstrating dishonest intent. Consequently, the Court held that the offence under Section 420 IPC was established and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether inducing payment for a non‑existent plot of land constitutes cheating under Section 420 IPC.
Whether the documentary evidence and handwriting expert testimony sufficiently prove dishonest intention.
Whether the existence of civil liability precludes criminal liability for cheating.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 420

Subjects

cheatingfraudSection 420 IPCcriminal liabilityreceipt forgeryproperty fraudappeal dismissed

Judgment

A N. DEVINDRAPPA
r '--
v.
STATEOFKARNATAKA

MAY 7, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, 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 ofthe complainant
is corroborated by exhibits-documents bearing his signature-handwriting of
accused testified by the handwriting expert-Hence, offence under Section
D
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
appeal
F
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
Ex. P 3 and these two documents bear the signatures of the accused and the
G 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
IPC is made out. There was definitely dishonest intention on the part of the A
l
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 KATJU, 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.
y
A the prosecution was that the appellant accused was not the owner of the /and
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 because the act of the appellant
has civil liability that does not mean that it cannot also have criminal liability.

8. The finding of fact of both the courts below is that the appellant
c dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver him Rs.2,000/- as advance in
cash as part payment alleged for sale of the plot of land in question, knowing
fully that he was not the owner of the said plot. It has been held that the
appellant deceived the complainant. It h~s also come in evidence that the
appellant had similarly deceived several other persons by saying that he
D would allot plots to them and he took money in advance but did not give them
the plot. Thus, it appears that the appellant had cheated many persons and
not merely the complainant. For instance, PW9 Sri Sitaram Kalanji had made
~
similar allegations against the accused. The evidence of the complainant is
corroborated by Ex. P 2 and Ex. P 3 and these two documents bear the
signatures of the accused and the complainant and the handwriting of the
E 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, in our opinion,
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 l.P.C. is made
F out. In our opinion, there was definitely dishonest intention on the part of
the appellant.

9. The complainant Rarnchandrappa Bhrammeri, PWI, has deposed that
the accused gave an impression that he was distributing sites to the poor
persons as representative of Raj iv Gandhi Badavara Kshemabhiruddi Sangha
G and on 5.10.1995 ihe accused came to his shop and assured him that he would
also get one house site in the land at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per gunta. PWI
further deposed that believing the word~ of the accused he gave
Rs.2,000/- to him as part payment and the accused gave him receipt for having
received the amount ooder his signature. PW I further stated that the accused '-
'
assured him that he w~mld get possession of the plot in question within 6
H
N. DEVINDRAPPA ,., STATE OF KARNA TAKA [MARKANDEY KA TJU,J] 39

\ to 8 months and one day took him to the village where the plot was situated A
and showed him one land saying that a plot would be given to him from the
said land. However, the accused did not give him possession of the plot and
went on postponing the same by assuring him that he would be given the
plot and the accused always made him believe his words.

l 0. The courts below have considered the evidence in great detail and B
recorded findings of fact based on the evidence on record and we see no
reason to disagree with the same.
).
11. There is r.o force in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.

S.K.S. Appeal dismissed. C