By Grishma Shetty at lexcliq
Under section 415 to 420 of IPC deals with cheating. Cheating means an person by deceiving another person fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived, to deliver any property to him, or to consent that he shall retain any property or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he was not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
Punishment for cheating – whoever cheats has be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 1 year or with fine or other.
The section requires –
- Deception of any person
- Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person
- to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain property
- Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit it he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind reputation or property.
Cheating by personation -Whenever one pretends to be someone else than his real self, by word, act, sign or dress, the offence under this section is committed provided some gain has accrued or some loss is incurred by either party.
- Pretending by a person to be some other person
- Knowingly substituting one person for another
- Representation that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
Punishment for cheating by personation – whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine or with both.
Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensure to person whose intend offender is bounded to protect – whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound, either by law, or a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.
K R Kumaran v. state of kerala
A person who was admitted in the hospital was checked by the doctor and the doctor knew that the person was in a condition that he won’t be able to survive. The doctor conspired with other accused to issue a life insurance policy for the person was going to die and in order to do so, he certified to be fit and healthy. This was done by accused in order to get the amount from the insurance company after the patient dies. The court held the accused liable for the offence of cheating and deceiving the insurance company in order to earn benefits. The accused was held guilty of cheating under IPC.
Abhayanand Mishra v. state of bihar
The appellant was a candidate who applied for M.A. examination to Patna University for permission to appear in the M.A. examination in English as a private candidate. He represented himself to be a graduate who has already obtained his B.A. degree and wants to pursue his M.A. degree from the University. Later, just before the commencement of his entrance examination, it was discovered that the certificates presented by the candidate for his M.A. entrance was forged and he did not actually obtain his B.A. degree. The court held the candidate guilty of making a false statement about him being a graduate as he did not obtain his B.A degree. He made an application and deceived the University and hence, was guilty of attempting to cheat under Section 420 of IPC.
Sushil Kumar Datta v. state
The accused personated himself as a scheduled caste candidate and appeared for the examination of Indian Administrative Service. He was appointed in that cadre because of his false representation of being a scheduled caste. It was held by the court that he was guilty of the offence of cheating by personation under Section 416 of IPC as he did not belong to scheduled caste and falsely represented himself as scheduled caste and hence, his conviction for cheating was held to be justified under the said section.