Cheating conviction could not be substituted without a framed charge or proof of inducement causing harm.

A substituted conviction under section 419 read with section 109 IPC could not stand where no such charge had been framed, the accused had not been examined on that basis under section 342 CrPC, and the prosecution case was not tried on a cheating footing. The Court further noted that the proved facts showed only wrongful identification before the Oath Commissioner and did not establish cheating under section 415 IPC, since there was no inducement causing or likely to cause damage or harm to the Oath Commissioner in body, mind, reputation or property. The conviction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in substituting a conviction under section 419 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code when no such charge had been framed and the proved facts did not satisfy the ingredients of cheating.

Analysis: The substituted conviction rested on a charge of cheating the Oath Commissioner, but no such charge had been framed, no explanation had been sought from the accused on that basis under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the prosecution case had not been tried on that footing. Further, the facts found only showed wrongful identification of another person before the Oath Commissioner. That conduct, by itself, did not establish all the ingredients of cheating within section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, because there was no inducement causing or likely to cause damage or harm to the Oath Commissioner in body, mind, reputation or property.

Conclusion: The conviction under section 419 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code could not be sustained and was set aside.

---