Cheating

Complainant alleged that accused was her former husband who prepared a false Nikahnamashowing her different name to reap benefits from his employer organization

Trial Court as well as High Court acquitted the accused of the charge

Validity

Original Nikahnama was produced by complainant herself before Trial Court, which demonstrated that everything was well within her knowledge from the beginning

Nikahnama in question was never sent for forensic test or to handwriting expert for verifying its genuineness

Star witness could have been custodian of the record of employer organization to depose and testify actual position along with the details of benefits if any availed on account of alleged fake Nikahnama

Neither any witness was produced nor called upon through summons of Court as prosecution witness to verify genuineness of official record

To prove guilt victim must have been motivated and inundated or swayed by disingenuous representation to act; there should be delivery of property or worthful security; the straight upshot of inducement must be altering or obliterating a valuable security or document and the act must have actuated harm/injury or impairment to victim

Acquittal was not merely a verdict of not guilty, rather it was a ratification and endorsement that the State failed to discharge burden of proof for the guilt

Such confirmation of declaring accused not guilty maintained exalted reverence

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgments passed by the Courts below, as there was no illegality, irregularity or perversity

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Accused persons were alleged to have issued illegal Computerized National Identity Cards and passports to foreign nations at place "Q"

Case was investigated at place "I" and Special Court at place "I" had also assumed the jurisdiction as cards and passports were printed at place "I"

Validity

Printing was to do with creation of the property, which was delivered by the person deceived as a consequence of the deception and such creation was not an ingredient of the offences under Ss.419 and 420, P.P.C.

It was inconsequential where printing of CNICs took place for the purpose of S.179, Cr.P.C.

Printing of CNICs was at the best a mere result of alleged approval granted by accused persons (which might be practically necessary for the consequences of alleged offences to ensue) but was not an essential ingredient for the completion of offences under S.419 or 420, P.P.C. by definition whereas S.179, Cr.P.C. applied to those offences which by their very definition consisted of an act and its consequences.

Accused was convicted for fraudulently receiving money from the members of the public under the guise of a fake housing scheme without any allotment or delivery of physical possession of plots to the allottees and dishonestly converting it to his own use

Accused had purchased a piece of land measuring 23 acres wherein a housing scheme was announced and the payment of the said land was to be completed in five years

Total number of persons who had sought booking in the scheme were 412

During this period, a dispute arose between accused and vendor

Vendor had obtained stay orders from the Civil Court, as such the accused had failed to develop the scheme

Out of 412 only 10 allottees had appeared before the Court

Two of the said witnesses had admitted in cross-examination that they had not paid the complete consideration amounts to the accused

Investigating Officer had admitted that the scheme had not matured due to civil litigation

Legislature from the expression "public at large" had intended to focus the public at macro level

Expression did not aim at the offences committed at the micro level

Prosecution in order to attract the mischief of S. 9(a)(ix) and (x) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, was obliged to bring on record that the accused was found guilty of defrauding the public at large scale

Prosecution had only produced ten witnesses and such a small faction of the society did not fall within the definition of expression "public at large"

Case was one of civil dispute based upon alleged breach of the agreement for which remedies laid somewhere other than in a criminal court

Appeal was accepted and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Deceiving and taking over delivery of property belonging to one person through dishonest inducement, which causes loss to the person deceived is the foremost factor to constitute act of cheating.

Appellant was son of complainant who filed private complaint in which accused was acquitted of the charge by Trial Court

Appellant sought special leave to appeal under S.417(2), Cr.P.C.

Validity

Complainant in caption of appeal had mentioned that the same was under S.417(2-A), Cr.P.C., which provision of law was not applicable

Judgment was passed upon the case filed through criminal complaint and in case of acquittal, S.417(2), Cr.P.C. covered the situation

Provision of S.417(2-A), Cr.P.C. was of general applicability i.e. in cases where accused was acquitted, any person aggrieved of the order of acquittal could prefer appeal

Where there was a special provision and a general provision, the special provision would prevail over the general one

Appellant was one of the legal heirs of complainant and was not a complainant, therefore, he could not have filed the appeal

State could file appeal against acquittal under S.417(1), Cr.P.C. and the same had not been done

Appellant was not competent to file appeal under S.417(2-A), Cr.P.C. therefore, the same was not maintainable

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Concession of bail in offences which were not punishable with imprisonment for ten years or life imprisonment or death, was not a right of the accused but was discretionary with the courts, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case

In ordinary course and in crimes of ordinary nature, such discretion was to be exercised in favour of the accused, however, when contrived and designed methodology was pressed into service by defrauding a bulk of poor people through fraudulent means, the discretion of court to grant bail should ordinarily not be exercised in a routine/lenient manner.

Accused along with co-accused persons was specifically nominated in the FIR with the allegation of running an online scam of offering jobs in return for money

More than fifty complaints of similar nature were received against the accused, which were still under inquiry/investigation thus, on the record available, the accused appeared to be a member of a gang of swindlers involved in deceptive tactics, depriving poor and needy people of their hard earned money

Accused was arrested from the same premises from where the alleged scam was being carried out through the alleged collaboration of accused and co-accused persons

Charge-sheet had been submitted in the case and trial was in progress, therefore, at present stage for bail purposes, deep appreciation of evidence or grant of bail on merits was not a permissible practice

Supreme Court refused bail to the accused in circumstances with the observation that online scams had to be curbed with iron hands and no mercy or leniency should be shown to persons involved in such organized crimes

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

"Cheating dishonestly" is indicative of mens rea, whereas "inducing a person to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy" constitutes the actus reus.

Petition had been filed against order passed by Justice of Peace, whereby application filed by the petitioner under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. was rejected on the ground; that a civil litigation was pending between the parties; and that under S.195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. only the court before whom a forged document was presented, was vested with the power to register a case against accused

Applicant/complainant had not only made grievance of offences as enumerated in S.195(1)(c), Cr.P.C., but he had also alleged an offence of cheating and prayed for registration of case under Ss.419 & 420, P.P.C.

Offences under Ss.419 & 420, P.P.C. were distinct from the offence of forgery

Said offences did not fall within the purview of S.195(1)(c), Cr.P.C.

Order passed by the Justice of Peace, was not sustainable to that extent

Offence complained of under Ss.419 & 420, P.P.C. was distinct offence from the offence of forgery, Justice of Peace, was not justified in passing the impugned order

S.H.O. was directed to receive the complaint of the petitioner; and if a cognizable offence was made out, he would register a case against the delinquents.

Justice of Peace/Sessions Court had dismissed the complainant's application for registration of case while constitutional petition was withdrawn by the complainant/respondent as he had managed to get a criminal case registered against the petitioner and his brother at `L'

Petition of respondent for registration of case against petitioner, though had been withdrawn yet the order of Justice of Peace/Sessions Judge at 'L' dismissing application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. was still in the field

Registration of impugned F.I.R. at was illegal and without jurisdiction

If respondent had any grievance, he should have got registered a case at `I' and not at `L'

Impugned F.I.R. was lodged with mala fide intention; continuance of proceedings would be an abuse of process of court

Petition was allowed.

Art. 185 (3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420 and Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2)-Cheating -Conviction for

Concurrent findings of fact by Courts below not suffering from any legal infirmity-Plea relating to question of procedure not raised before lower forums

Held, cannot be upheld in absence of any reference to relevant law

Leave to appeal refused.

Ss. 415 & 420-Cheating-Mens rea-Evidence of Settlement Official directly concerned with auction proceedings of big mansion including mansion under consideration creating impression of intending buyers having been informed at spot of entire building having been meant for sale-Custodian property numbers overlapping and one unit including portion of property unit under dispute-Auction notice as well as negotiations mentioning four custodian units without higher aggregate rental value-Insistence of petitioner with regard to fifth unit forming part of whole building also showing his impression of having purchased whole building-Property numbers-Not determining factor of identity of .property sold-Reasonably possible in circumstances for petitioner to have considered himself genuinely entitled to whole of mansion and necessary mens rea as contemplated by Ss. 415 and 420 held, not attributable.

S. 409/468/420-Cheeating-Forgery-Criminal Breach of trust by Public Servant-Petitioner throughout acting as Secretary of a Cooperative Society forging resolutions of Society permitting Society to take loan of certain amount from Bank on basis of a pronote to be executed by Society land authorising Bank to pay money to Treasurer of Society-Bogus promote prepared by petitioner and Treasurer of Society authorised to draw money from Bank-One of co-accused posing himself to be such a Treasurer drawing amount on being identified by petitioner to be Treasurer of Society-Petitioner having obtained money from Bank with help of his co-accused by misusing his position through forgery and fraud a clear case of criminal breach of trust, held, made out against him-Acts done by petitioner showing petitioner having dishonestly induced Bank with help of his co-accused, to deliver money to co-accused whom he identified to be real Treasurer of Society, offences of cheating and forgery, held further, also brought home to peti

Ss. 409, 420 & 109-Criminal breach of trust-Cheating-Company, criminal liability of company bound to pay to appellant sums collected by it on behalf of appellant but failing to pay-"Someone" managing company's affairs clearly misappropriated appellant's funds

Mater, held, for trial Court to decide as to who such "someone" is and fact of "individual respondent" entrusted with relevant documents being not specified in complaint totally immaterial.

Ss. 406/109 & 420/ 109-Cheating-Quashment of proceedings-Firm belonging to accused appellant J' alone and not jointly owned by all accused-Money complained of given and received by accused Y alone and receipts executed by such accused alone-Case against accused appellants other than accused appellant Y quashed in circumstances-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A.

S. 420-Cheating-WitnessEvidence-Corroboration-Accused inducing complainant to pay money on promise of getting order, adversely passed against him, set aside and to get land allotted to him-Money paid in presence of independent witnesses-Contention that case being one relating to bribery, complainant and witnesses were accomplices and should not have been believed without independent corroboration in material particulars Witnesses, held, witnessed only payment of money and cannot in circumstances be described as accomplices-Conviction, held, based on reliable evidence and unexceptionable.

Ss. 417 & 420-CheatingMere existence of civil remedy-No bar to criminal trial.

S. 415-Cheating-DefinitionDeception by false representation-Representation must be false to knowledge of maker.

Cheating-Letters involving misrepresentation written at K and received at J, acted upon (money remitted at J. to accused at K)-Court at J has jurisdiction to try case though misrepresentation was initiated at K.-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 18'98), S. 179.

Cheating Representation made as result of error of judgment does not amount to deceit.

Complaint by person not actually cheated-Locus standi-Complaint dismissed.