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, 1960 SCR (3) 554, I.L.R. 16 Cal. 310,116
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1955, Criminal Appeal No. 1208 of 1955 (Bombay High Court), Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1955 (Sessions Judge, Baroda)
Neutral citation: 1960 SCR (3) 554
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal
Source court or forum: Bombay High Court
Source Judgment: Read judgment
Factual and Procedural Background
The three accused approached a man named Ramanlal and informed him that two of them possessed the skill of duplicating currency notes and were prepared to perform the service for a fee. Ramanlal conveyed this proposal to his friend Champaklal, who pretended to believe the claim in order to trap the accused. Champaklal offered to provide currency notes worth Rs 20,000 for duplication and fixed a date for the alleged work.
Police officers concealed themselves in Ramanlal’s house where the meeting was to take place. On the appointed day the three accused arrived; the second accused spread bottles, blank papers and other items on a carpet. The appellant, who was the first accused, asked Champaklal to produce the currency notes. Champaklal withdrew two genuine notes of Rs 100 each and handed them to the appellant. Immediately after the appellant received the notes, Champaklal gave a pre‑arranged signal and the police entered the room and arrested all three accused.
The Magistrate convicted the accused under section 420 read with sections 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing each to rigorous imprisonment for twelve months, a fine of Rs 500 and, in default of payment, an additional imprisonment of four months. The Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. The Bombay High Court set aside the acquittal and restored the Magistrate’s conviction. The appellant alone filed a special leave appeal before the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 1955). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the conviction.
Issues, Contentions and Controversy
The Court was called upon to determine:
Whether the appellant had made a false representation to Champaklal concerning the ability to duplicate currency notes.
Whether the making of such a representation and the receipt of money constituted an attempt to cheat within the meaning of section 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
Whether Champaklal’s foreknowledge of the trap and his lack of actual deception negated the existence of an attempt.
Contentions of the appellant were:
That no false representation had been made to the complainant.
That the accused had only engaged in preparation, which is not punishable under section 511.
That because the complainant was not deceived, an attempt to cheat could not be established.
Contentions of the State were:
That a false representation had been made when the accused claimed they could duplicate currency notes for Rs 20,000.
That the receipt of two Rs 100 notes on the basis of that representation satisfied the essential ingredients of cheating.
That the acts of making the representation and obtaining the money were proximate steps “towards the commission of the offence” under section 511, and that the complainant’s foreknowledge did not defeat liability.
Statutory Framework and Legal Principles
The Court considered the following provisions of the Indian Penal Code:
Section 420 – cheating.
Section 511 – attempt to commit an offence, requiring a proximate act that is more than mere preparation.
Section 34 – common intention.
The Court applied the test for attempt prescribed in section 511, which demands that the accused perform an act that is a proximate step towards the commission of the offence and is not merely preparatory. The Court also relied on the principle articulated in *The Government of Bengal v. Umesh Chunder Mitter* that a person may be guilty of attempting to cheat even when the intended victim is forewarned.
Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court held that the accused had indeed made a false representation to Champaklal by claiming the ability to duplicate currency notes. It found that the appellant had obtained property – two genuine Rs 100 notes – on the basis of that representation. Both the making of the false representation and the receipt of the notes were characterised as acts “towards the commission of the offence” under section 511. Consequently, the conduct could not be described merely as preparation; it satisfied the statutory requirement of an attempt.
The Court further reasoned that the complainant’s foreknowledge and his feigned belief did not negate the existence of an attempt. The offence of cheating was complete once the false representation was made and property was obtained, irrespective of whether the victim was actually deceived. The Court therefore affirmed the High Court’s view that the appellant’s actions constituted an attempt to cheat.
Final Relief and Conclusion
The Supreme Court refused the relief sought by the appellant. It dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Bombay High Court, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence originally imposed by the Magistrate under sections 420, 511 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.