Case Analysis: Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai vs The State Of Bombay
Case Details
Case name: Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai vs The State Of Bombay
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: A.K. Sarkar, Syed Jaffer Imam
Date of decision: 19 April 1960
Citation / citations: 1960 AIR 979; I.L.R. 16 Cal. 310,116
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1955; Criminal Appeal No. 1208 of 1955; Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1955
Neutral citation: 1960 SCR (3) 554
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal
Source court or forum: Supreme Court of India
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai was one of three accused who approached a man named Ramanlal, claiming that they could duplicate currency notes. Ramanlal conveyed the proposal to his friend Champaklal, who agreed to act as a trap. Champaklal promised to supply currency notes worth Rs 20,000 for duplication and fixed a date for the alleged transaction. The police concealed themselves in Ramanlal’s house and, on the appointed day, the three accused arrived. The second accused spread bottles, blank papers and other items on a carpet; the appellant asked Champaklal to produce the currency notes. Champaklal produced two Rs 100 notes from a bag that was said to contain the promised notes and handed them to the appellant. At that moment a pre‑arranged signal was given and the police entered the room and arrested all three accused. The accused were charged with an attempt to cheat under sections 420, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
A magistrate convicted the three accused, sentencing each to twelve months’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of Rs 500 and, in default of payment, an additional four months’ imprisonment. The Sessions Judge at Baroda acquitted the accused. The State of Bombay appealed, and the Bombay High Court set aside the acquittal and restored the magistrate’s conviction. The appellant alone filed a criminal appeal (Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1955) before this Court, seeking to quash the High Court’s judgment, to set aside the conviction and sentence, and to reinstate the Sessions Judge’s acquittal.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was called upon to determine whether the appellant had committed the offence of attempt to cheat under section 420 read with sections 511 and 34 of the IPC. The specific issues were:
Whether any false representation had been made to the complainant Champaklal.
Whether the acts of the accused amounted to an attempt to cheat or merely to preparation, which is not punishable.
Whether the complainant’s foreknowledge and lack of actual deception negated the existence of an attempt.
The appellant contended that (i) no representation had been made, (ii) the accused had only prepared for the offence, and (iii) the complainant’s forewarning precluded any attempt. The State argued that a false representation had been made, that the appellant had obtained Rs 200 from the complainant, and that these acts satisfied the ingredients of cheating under section 420 and constituted an attempt under section 511, irrespective of the complainant’s knowledge.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
The Court identified the following statutory provisions:
Section 420, IPC – punishes cheating, which requires a false representation coupled with the delivery of property.
Section 511, IPC – defines the offence of attempt to commit a crime and requires an act “towards the commission of the offence” that goes beyond mere preparation.
Section 34, IPC – deals with common intention of persons acting together.
The legal test applied was whether the accused performed an overt act that went beyond preparation and was directed towards the commission of cheating. The Court also relied on the principle articulated in Government of Bengal v. Umesh Chunder Mitter, which holds that an attempt to cheat may be established even when the intended victim is forewarned.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court examined the evidence, which included the testimony of Champaklal, the police officers who had concealed themselves in Ramanlal’s house, and the observation that the appellant had demanded and received two Rs 100 notes. It held that the appellant had made a false representation that he could duplicate currency notes and had obtained a sum of Rs 200 on that basis. These acts satisfied the essential ingredients of cheating under section 420.
Applying section 511, the Court found that the making of the false representation and the receipt of money were overt steps directed towards the commission of cheating. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the complainant’s foreknowledge negated the attempt, observing that the offence of attempt is complete when the accused performs the acts constituting the offence, even if the victim is not actually deceived. Consequently, the Court concluded that the preparation had transcended mere planning and had become an attempt punishable under section 511, read with sections 420 and 34.
The ratio decidendi was that an attempt to cheat is complete when a false representation is made and property is obtained, irrespective of the victim’s awareness of the deception. This principle was binding for the case at hand.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Court refused the relief sought by the appellant. It dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence originally imposed by the magistrate. The High Court’s order restoring the conviction was affirmed, and the appellant’s attempt to set aside the judgment was rejected.