Skeo Prasad and Others vs Emperor

Adami, J.—The Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were convicted in the trial Court u/s 417 read with Section 511 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 50 each the third petitioner, a constable, was sentenced to three months'' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20 u/s 417 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal the convictions, u/s 417 read with Section 511, of the first two petitioners have been changed to convictions u/s 417; the conviction of Petitioner No. 3 u/s 417 read with Section 114 was maintained. The sentences have been maintained.

The Petitioner No. 1 is the landlord of village Narekela and Petitioner No. 2 is his relation.

There had been a paddy looting case in the village and the sub-Inspector, accompanied by the constable, Petitioner No. 3, went to the village in order to take recognizance from certain tenants who were to be witnesses in the case. The Sub-Inspector stayed at the house of Petitioner No. 1. The witnesses were called to that house to give recognizance to appear. The Sub-Inspector was sitting in the room, and the first and second petitioners as well as the constable were also there. Before thumb-impressions were taken on the recognizance bonds, it was suggested that it would be well first to test the ink with which the impressions were to be taken. The witnesses were therefore called forward to give their sample thumb-impressions on a blank piece of paper; one of them refused, but the others allowed the constable to ink their hands, and their impressions were taken on the blank piece of paper. The Petitioner No. 1 supplied the paper, and after the impressions were put on it took it away. The next day the witnesses, who had put their thump-impressions on the paper went to their padree, the Rev. Father Bodson, and told him what had happened and expressed to him a fear that the landlord, with whom their relations were strained, might use the blank piece of paper with the thumb-impressions upon it for the purpose of bringing a case against them. The padre went to the police station and told the Sub-Inspector the fears of the villagers and the Sub-Inspector promised to get the paper back. Next day the constable, Petitioner No. 3, was sent to the village from the police station and recovered the blank piece of paper from the Petitioner No. 2 and tore away from it the portion containing the thumb impressions. The thumb impressions were taken on the 28th November 1924. Nothing more was done till the 13th February 1925 when the Sub-Divisional Officer of Gumla went on tour to the village. There he was told by the tenants that they were frightened that the Petitioner No. 1 might make use of the document on which they had put their thumb-impressions. Their statement was taken and was treated as a complaint, and proceedings were started against the three petitioners, and they were convicted of an attempt to cheat and, in the case of Petitioner No. 3, of an abetment of the offence of cheating.

An appeal was made to the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi. He held that the facts showed, not an attempt to cheat, but a substantive offence of cheating and altered the convictions accordingly.

The learned Judicial Commissioner was then moved to refer the case to this Court, but he refused; for he found that the appellate Court had come to the right conclusion in finding that the petitioners had committed the offence of cheating.

The prosecution case was that the petitioners intended from the first to obtain from the tenants thumb-impressions on a blank piece of paper by representing to them that the reason for taking the thumb-impressions was in order that the ink to be used might be tested, and that their dishonest or fraudulent intention was afterwards to convert the blank piece of paper into some document which they might use against the tenants for their own end.

Both the Courts below have found that the action of the petitioners amounted to more than a preparation for the offence. Evidently the Courts held that the petitioners fraudulently or dishonestly deceived the tenants, and thus intentionally induced them to put their thumb-impressions on the blank paper, an action which they would not have taken if they had not been deceived by the petitioners; also that the action, which the tenants were deceived into taking was likely to cause damage or harm to the tenants in body, mind, reputation or property. There can be no doubt that, if the petitioners had this fraudulent or dishonest intention and deceived the tenants and thus induced them to give their thumb-impressions, on the wording of Section 415 the offence of cheating would be complete when the action was taken. But there are elements in this case which, to my mind, cannot bring the action of the petitioners under the purview of Section 415. In the first place, with regard to the intention, it is assumed that the petitioners intended to convert the blank piece of paper into some written instrument and to use it for their own purpose dishonestly. Had the petitioners gone one step further and made any entry on the blank piece of paper, if they had begun writing the words "I promise;" there might have been some good reason for concluding that the intention was to use this paper for dishonest purposes. But in the present case all we have is a blank piece of paper with thumb-impressions upon it; there is nothing written on the paper, and that being so, there is hardly sufficient to show a dishonest intention. It is not enough to assume that probably the intention of the petitioners was to convert the blank paper into a written document. Were we to find that the mere presence on the paper of thumb impressions was sufficient to show an intention to use that paper dishonestly, then the hobby of autograph collecting would be a dangerous one.

Then again the Court must be satisfied that the tenants were deceived. One tenant refused to give his thumb-impression: the other tenants in their evidence state that they gave their thumb-impressions unwillingly. It is clear, I think, thumb-impressions were given by these tenants not under the impression so much that they were being used as a test, but because the Sub-Inspector and the constable were present and they were told to put their thumb-impressions on the paper. Their action in going to the padre next day and telling him what their fears were would point to the fact that they wore not deceived. To my mind the elements necessary for constituting the offence of cheating were not all present in the present case. There may have been a preparation to cheat but the action of the petitioners fell short of an attempt at cheating and the substantive offence of cheating. No attempt was ever made to use the blank piece of paper, and, so far as we know, nothing was ever written on it. The petitioners could not even be prosecuted for an attempt at forgery until they had made some entry on the blank paper which would show a stage going further than mere preparation,

The convictions of the petitioners must be set aside and they must be acquitted and set at liberty the fines, it paid, will be refunded.