Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 29

130. Meaning of "deception".-The first ingredient of cheating is, thus, "deception". The point which requires consideration is, whether there is "deception" when a person delivers sub-standard goods, without making any express representation that the goods are in accordance with the contract. The argument that may be advanced is, that the contractor does not deceive any person, where he makes no representation that the goods are in accordance with the contract. We are not inclined to accept this argument. Though decided cases dealing with this specific point are few1, it would appear, that in such case a representation to the above effect could be implied. It may be pointed out, that, as provided by the Explanation to section 415, Indian Penal Code2-3, a dishonest concealment of facts is "deception". Illustrations (h) and (i) to section 415 also emphasise the same aspect.

1. See Appendix 24.

2. See also para. 127, supra.

3. Surendra v. Bai Narmada, AIR 1963 Guj 239.,

131. As has been observed1, "The practice of deception implies the practice of fraud and falsehood. For, there can be no deception without fraud, and falsehood is a species of fraud implied in deceit. Now, fraud is hydra-headed, and its ways of attack are insidious and innumerable. It may consist of words, acts or conduct, or all combined.".

1. Gour Penal Law of India, (1962), Vol. 3, p. 2225.

132. Point of implied representation academic.-In practice, the point1 may often be academic, as in respect of huge contracts where detailed bills are to be submitted, the bills will have to describe the goods sup plied in great detail, so that the contractor cannot avoid making an express representation at some stage or other2.

1. Para. 130, supra.

2. Cf. Billinghurst v. Emp., AIR 1924 Cal 18 (41, 43) (Sanderson C. J. and Richardson J.).

133. Attempt to cheat.-Where the defect in the goods is discovered before payment, it would be an attempt to cheat.1-2-3

1. Billinghurst v. Emp., AIR 1924 Cal 18 (41, 43) (Sanderson C. J. and Richardson J.).

2. R. v. Light, (1915) 84 LJKB 865: (1914-15) All ER Rep 659 (C.C.A.).

3. Halsburry's Laws of England, (3rd Edn.), Vol. 10, p. 828, footnote (h) and p. 931, para. 1602.

134. Complicity of officers and offenders.--Another point which we had to consider was, whether cases where the officer receiving delivery and the offender are acting in complicity, are covered by sections 415-420, Indian Penal Code. We think that they would be covered. In fact, this seems to have been assumed in a recent decision of the Supreme Court1, and in cases of certain High Courts.2-3

1. Cf. Banwari Lal v. The Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1620.

2. See J.S. Dhas (in re:), AIR 1940 Mad 155 (157).

3. The decision in Sheonarayan v. State of Bihar, AIR 1953 Pat 225 (228, 229), para. 11 (S.K. Das J.) can be distinguished on the facts.

Proposal to include certain Social and Economic Offences in the Indian Penal Code Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys