Report No. 156

10. Amendment of the definition of "fraudulently" under section 25.-

Do you agree that the definition of the word "fraudulently" is very unsatisfactory, if at all it can be called a definition at all by one which will at least state the essential requirements as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration, 1963 Suppl (2) SCR 585 and Dr. S. Dutt. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1966) 1 SCR 493 (502) and furnish a guideline in doubtful cases? It is felt that in such a definition, it would obviously be not sufficient to relate the second element to the deceiver's intention to obtain an undue benefit or advantage to himself by means of the deceit.

To constitute culpable fraud there should either be an intention to cause by the deception injury in the wide sense to someone or, at any rate, an intention to induce the person deceived to act to his disadvantage. In view of this do you agree that section 25 be amended in the following manner as provided in clause 10 of the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, 1978?

A person is said to do a thing "fraudulently" if he does that thing with intent to deceive another and, by such deceit, either to cause injury or damage to body, mind, reputation or property of any person or to induce any person to act to his disadvantage.