TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court acquits Appellant in cheating case due to lack of fraudulent intent</h1> <h3>Samir Sahay Versus State of U.P. and Ors.</h3> Samir Sahay Versus State of U.P. and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were present in the allegations against the Appellant.2. Whether the Appellant should be discharged from the charges under Section 420 IPC.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Ingredients of Section 420 IPC:The primary contention revolves around whether the allegations against the Appellant fulfill the criteria for cheating under Section 420 IPC. Section 420 IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. For a charge under this section, the prosecution must establish that the accused had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise, which led to the delivery of property.The court examined the First Information Report (FIR) and the statements made by the complainant and his wife. The FIR alleged that Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.), the Appellant's father, assured the complainant that their money would be safe and took responsibility for it. The Appellant was merely present during this assurance. The court noted that there was no allegation that the Appellant himself made any fraudulent or dishonest inducement. The court referenced several precedents, including Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar and Dalip Kaur v. Jagnar Singh, emphasizing that mere presence or subsequent failure to fulfill a promise does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intention is shown at the inception.Issue 2: Discharge from Charges:The Appellant sought discharge on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to frame charges under Section 420 IPC. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) rejected this application, citing that the complainant deposited money based on assurances from both Major P.C. Sahay (Retd.) and the Appellant. However, the High Court dismissed the revision, stating no manifest error or illegality was pointed out.The Supreme Court scrutinized the CJM's order and the High Court's brief dismissal. It reiterated that for a charge of cheating, there must be clear evidence of fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of inducement. The court found that the allegations against the Appellant did not meet this criterion. The court highlighted that the Appellant's mere presence and subsequent events do not suffice to establish the requisite mens rea for cheating.The court concluded that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not made out against the Appellant. Consequently, it set aside the orders of the CJM and the High Court, discharging the Appellant from the charges under Section 420 IPC.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the lower courts. It held that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC were not established against the Appellant, thereby discharging him from the charges in Criminal Case No. 545 of 2002.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
