[Sections 415 To 420, P.P.C.]
Deception essential ingredient of offence. Victim knowing real facts. Held no deception and no cheating. PLD 1959 Lah. 372, Muhammad Rashid PLD 1959 Lah. 238 Muhammad Sharif, Asgher. Contra. PLD 1958 Kar. 521 Sardar Wali Khan.
Essential of offence. Delivery of Property induced by fraudulent or dishonest means is necessary. PLD 1958 Lah. 738 Zafar Niazi v. Riaz-ud-Din.
Delivery of property independently of deception employed does not amount to cheating PLD 1956 Kar. 489 F.S. Wahid-ud-Din v. Crown.
Intention to cheat must exist at the time when offence is said to have been committed. PLD 1961 Dac. 53 Abdul Amal v. Muhammad Vali Ullah.
Intention of paramount importance in cases of misappropriation of property. When conversion/disposal of amount was not done dishonestly benefit of doubt had to be given to the accused, despite temporary misappropriation. PLJ 1980 SC 366. Nadir Shah.
No dishonest intention. Inducement to do something without dishonest or fraudulent intention is no offence. PLJ 1973 Lah. 464 Abdul Hamid 1975 P.Cr. LJ 1432 Muzaffar Hussain.
Cheating test. It must be established that some one is made to part with some property on the promise of another to return something in lieu thereof which the latter had no intention to give. (DB) PLD 1959 Dac. 88, Prithi Raj Bacha.
Locus standi to make complaint. Where the complaint was made by person who was not actually cheated, held the complainant had no locus standi. The complaint was dismissed. PLD 1954 BJ 5 Muhammad Hayat Khan. v. Ghulam Muhammad. (DB) PLD 1960 Dac. 528 Surendra Nath Shah. Contra PLD 1959 Lah. 372 Muhammad Rashid. (DB) PLD 1963 Dacca 357 Jagdish Chandra v. Joynarayan. PLD 1962 Kar. 793 Abdullah PLD 1962 Kar. 326 Jassumal. PLD 1968 Lah. 451 Muhammad Ehsan.
Jurisdiction. Offence of cheating can be tried at place where cheating takes place or consequence ensue. PLD 1962 Kar. 499. Muhammad Aslam. PLD 1962 Kar. 748 Muhammad Mahboob etc. v. Ghulam Qadir.
Charge: manner of deception not stated, held charge defective. (SC) PLD 1957 SC 257. M.E.N Rewail.
Principal offender acquitted. Abettor thereby is not necessarily entitled to acquittal. PLD 1966 Dac. 269. See also 1968 P.Cr. LJ 50 Sohna.
Abettor. Principal accused acquitted, held, not proper to convict alleged, abttor as a scapegoat on same evidence 1968 P.Cr.LJ 50 Sohna.
Government is a person. Government property in possession of Government Servant deemed to be in possession of Government prima facie. (SC) PLD 1960 SC 168 Muhammad Rashid.
Cheating not official duty. Public Servant committing offence of cheating under section 420 cannot be said to be acting in discharge of his official duty. No sanction for prosecution is necessary. PLD 1963 Lah. 186. State v. Sikandar Khan.
Harm to reputation or property of third person. Deception practised on Government Servant resulting in harm to reputation or property of third person Held provisions of Section 415, P.P.C attracted. PLD 1966 Lah. 330. Muhammad Shafi.
Property in section 420 refers only to movable property. (1881) 2 AWN 5 Abdul Ahad v. Emp.
Value of property. Property may or may not have a money or marked value. It may have special value for some persons and none for others. An examination certificate is property. AIR 1922 Nag. 229 Local Government v. Gangaram. PLD 1957 Lah. 207 Amanat Ali.
Representation must be false to the knowledge of marker. (DB) PLD 1964 Dac. 600 Zahid Hussain Khan.
Cheating by personation and wrong statement. A alleging before patwari and Naib-Tehsildar that B had sold and to him and produced M who represented that he was B. Held, A and M could not be convicted under section 419 or 420, P.P.C M's Statement before Naib-Tehisldar could not be held as valuable security. (DB) 43 Cr. P.C. (1942 Lah.) 254 = 197 Ind. Case 711 Muhammad Bakhsh etc. v. Emp.
Deception not practised on person sustaining harm or damage held, conviction under section 419/109 not sustainable, Accused in collusion with a person who personated as true owner of land before Revenue Officer and causing him to sanction mutation. Accused could not be convicted for "Abetment of cheating by personation," Copy of Judgment sent to Federal Government to remove defect in law. (SC) PLD 1973 SC 619 Thari v. Muhammad PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Lah.) 425. Ghaus Muhammad.
Got employment by misrepresentation: held, the accused is guilty of cheating, PLD 1959 Lah. 372 Muhammad Rashid.
Money order for fictitious person. Accused putting signature on money order in token of receipt of amount of money order in the name of payee, a fictitious person. Held guilty of offences under sections 420/511 and 468, PPC. (DB) PLD 1962 Lah. 244 State v. Muhammad Younas.
Money Circulation Scheme, a gambling venture in nature faithfully put forward to public. Held, charge of conspiracy to cheat cannot be founded upon agreement to launch and vigorously pursue such Scheme to attract investors. (DB) PLD 1964 Dac. 600 Zahid Hussain Khan.
National prize bond scheme and State lottery: Section 294-A PPC so far as it exempts State lottery or lottery authorised by Provincial Govt. is repugnant to injunctions of Islam and sec. 294-B PPC so far as it generally prohibits free trade in commodities on fair market price is also repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. National prize bond scheme is not repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam. PLD 1992 S.C. 153, Federation of Pakistan Sh. Mushtaq Ali Advocate.
Cross word puzzle competition. Complainant alleging that he was entitled to a prize, held grievance of a Civil nature. PLD 1958 Lah. 738 Zafar Niazi v. Riaz-ud-Din.
Medical treatment failure of. Mere failure of medical treatment cannot sustain charge of cheating. Court principles governing obligation of persons undertaking to cure disease stated. Conviction set aside (SC) PLD 1957 SC 257 M.E.N Rewail.
Domicile Certificate obtained by false representation, in order to obtain admission in medical college, held not property. Conviction under sections 419 and 420, PPC set aside. Held case fell under section 182, PPC. (SC) PLD 1962 SC 397 Muhammad Afzal.
Bail bond bogus or false description of sureties and witnesses. Surety and attesting witness entering wrong description of themselves on bail bond and getting order of release, held not an offence under section 419 but one under section 205, PPC. Necessity of amending section 415, PPC. 1960 Lah. 290 Ghulam Mustafa.
Supply of rubbish concealed in the middle of cotton bales representing that good machine ginned cotton was being supplied. Held, the accused was guilty of cheating 13 Cr. LJ 285 Kanji Shivaji.
Personation by witness. A witness falsely deposing in another's name should be charged with giving false evidence under section 193 and not cheating by personation (1863) I.B.H.C. 89 Prema Bhika v. Emp.
False representation and transfer of property. Person having already executed mortgage deed in favour of A assuring B in writing that property mortgaged was free all encumbrances. Definition of constructive notice set out in explanation 1 to Section 3 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cannot be invoked in defence of criminal charge of deception and cheating PLD 1965 Lah. 676 Rab Nawaz.
False identification. Lambardar identifying, before patwari, an imposter as the real owner of property. Contention that the identification was innocent and did not deceive anyone repelled. Conviction under section 420/114, P.P.C held proper 1972 SCMR 285 Abdur Rehman.
False representation. Where a prostitute communicated syphilis to a man who had sexual intercourse with her on the strength of her misrepresentation that she was free from disease, held, she was guilty of offence under section 420. (1886) 11 Bom 59. Rakma v. Emp.
Causing Sanction of mutation. (Sections 415/419 and 109, P.P.C) In cheating deception is an essential ingredient. Deception not practised directly upon person sustaining harm or damage, conviction under section 419/109, PPC is not sustainable. Accused in collusion with a causing him to sanction mutation. Accused held could not be convicted for abetment of abetment of cheating by personation. (SC) PLD 1973 SC 619 Mst Thari v. Muhammad etc.
Purchase of cloth. Accused purchased cloth and promised to pay price next day but did not do so. Circumstances showing that the accused had no intention of paying from very start. Conviction under section 420, PPC upheld 1968 P.Cr.LJ 1734 Ali Hussain.
Promise of marriage of daughter and receiving gifts. Later, refusing to honour promise and not returning gifts. Held dispute of Civil nature. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 558 (Kar.) Abdul Ghani etc. v. Muhammad Aslam etc.
Marriage agreement made and girl's father obtained clothes and cash. Later changed his mind and declined to give girl in marriage. Dishonest intention at the time of agreement not spelled out. No offence under section 420, PPC made out. Entertainment of complaint an abuse of process of Court. Proceedings quashed. 1973 P.Cr.LJ 104 Allah Bakhsh etc. 1975 P.Cr.LJ 558 = PLJ 1975 Cr.C. (Kar.) 549 Abdul Ghani.
Marriage of a girl already married. When the accused got a young girl already married with her mother's consent, married to a rich man at another village who paid some money to the accused as bride price and the accused handed the money to the girl's mother, held they were guilty of cheating. 22 Pat. 263 Banamali Tripathy v. Emp.
A promise to do something in future per se may not amount to a false pretence or to cheating but it may at the same time, in certain cases, involve a false pretence that the promisor has the power to do that thing for which false pretence was made the promisor may be indictable. 11 Cr.LJ 428 = PR No. 12 of 1913 Girdhari Lal.
Dispute of civil nature. Civil Suit dismissed on merits. Resort to criminal prosecution after 4 year of dismissal of Civil Suit, Proceedings quashed PLD 1970 Kar. 446. Abdul Khabir v. Abdul Ghani.
Bargain by businessman. Mere failure to deliver bargained goods and prevarications, held may fix Civil liability but not criminal. 1971 P.Cr.LJ 1329 Saleh Muhammad. 1972 P.Cr.LJ 1130 Ghulam Muhammad.
Agreement for construction. Accused performed major part of contract but left work incomplete. No. Mens rea could be inferred. No offence under section 420, P.P.C. 1969 P.Cr.LJ 1414 Muhammad Yasin Khan v. Feroz Khan 1972 P.Cr.LJ 1297 Jamil Zahid.
Dispute of civil nature. Accused/Respondent floated a company and invited claims to get property for claimants. The Respondent got compensation books of petitioner, got the property for the claims but did not transfer it to the petitioner. Conduct of respondent not above board but dispute held to be of Civil nature. (SC) 1975 SCMR Syed Wajid Hussain.
Enforcing civil liability through criminal Court by complainant under sections 420, 406, P.P.C. is gross abuse of the process of the Court. Proceedings quashed. PLD 1963 Lah. 481 Muhammad-ul-Haq v. Imtiaz Khan etc.
Cycle taken on hire and not returned a civil liability; conviction under section 420, P.P.C. set aside. 1977 P.Cr.LJ 422 Sher Muhammad.
Dispute of civil nature. Section 420, P.P.C. cheating. A film hired for exhibition on payment of certain amount. Film proved a flop. Promised payment not made. Held dispute of Civil nature. No cheating, Proceedings quashed. 1971 P.Cr.LJ 1006 Miss Noor Jahan. 1971 P.Cr.LJ 1329 Saleh Muhammad.
Mere existence of Civil remedy is not bar to Criminal Trial. PLD 1965 Lah. 676 Rab Nawaz. 1974 P.Cr.LJ 541 Rehmat Ullah v. Abdul Aziz.
Post-dated Cheque. Mere dishonour of cheque is not sufficient to sustain charge of cheating or criminal misappropriation. PLD 1963 Kar. 54 = PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 496 Muhammad Asghar v. Abdul Karim Rana.
Cheque dishonoured no offence made out. Proceedings quashed. PLD 1987 Quetta 230. Annand Ram v. Moti Ram.
Post-dated cheque dishonoured amounts to acknowledgement of loan and a promise to pay. Non-payment is a broken promise and is no offence. 1970 P.Cr.LJ 445 Ch. Riasat Ali. AIR 1938 Mad. 129 MMST Chidambarma v. Shanmugham Pillai.
" Cheating can be spelled out from the intention, and knowledge of the accused it is not a rule of law that no offence of cheating and fraud is made out when a post-dated cheque is dishonoured. PLJ 1982 SC 198. Nasir Ali v. Munshi Mehr Khan.
Dishonour of post-dated cheque. Law cannot be laid down so broadly as to hold that in every case of post-dated cheque no offence of cheating would arise and that it would remain a civil transaction. Intention of the drawer of the cheque and other evidence to be considered. PLD 1981 SC 607 Nasir Ali v. Munshi Mehr Khan.
Cheque dishonoured. Liability held to be Civil and not criminal. Liability or at worst refusal to pay outstanding amount, held, such facts made out no criminal case. 1971 P.Cr.LJ 943 Gul Jamal Khan v. Shah Jahan Khan.
"Not a criminal case. Remedy in Civil Court. PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 496 Muhammad Asghar v. Maj. Abdul Karim.
"The issue of cheque does not represent that the drawer already has money in the bank to the amount shown in the cheque, for he may either have authority to overdraw or have an honest intention of paying in the necessary money before the cheque can be presented to the bank. 19 Lah. 662 Kanwar Sain.
Post-dated cheque issued after the delivery of goods: to the vendor and a receipt obtained. No offence of cheating is committed as receipt is not a valuable security. AIR 1936 Cal. 324.
Post-dated cheque. Giving a post-dated cheque by a person who has no funds to his credit in the bank does not amount to an offence of cheating when there is no evidence to show that the person to whom cheque was given parted with any property or he omitted to do anything which if he had known that the cheque would be dishonoured would have done. AIR 1940 Lah. 93 = 41 Cr.LJ 394.
Post-dated cheque: charge to be precise. When goods were obtained by giving a post-dated cheque which was dishonoured held the charge must be made precise in such cases in which representation was implied rather than directly expressed. 19 Lah. 662 Kanawar Sain v. Emp.
Cheque for money due. Post-dated cheque for money due dishonoured twice. The accused knowing that he had no money in the Bank. Proceedings under section 420 not quashed. 1972 P.Cr.LJ 1182 Abdul Karim Butt v. Abdul Qayyum.