Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
It was stated that to attract Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860, the accused must cheat and dishonestly induce the victim to deliver any property to any person or make, alter, or destroy a part of valuable property.
“For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e., since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property.”
A same act may not amount to cheating and criminal breach of trust at the same time as for cheating, dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction, whereas, for criminal breach of trust, there must exist a relationship between the parties, whereby one party entrusts another with the property as per law, albeit dishonest intention comes later.
“Mere dealing in cryptocurrency cannot be treated as illegal.
The Court stated that the allegations against the police officers are serious, and the latter need to respond to them.
“For attracting the provision of Section 420 of the IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC are made out.”
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1960.
It is the case of the prosecution that accused actively connived along with the co-accused in projecting herself to be a partner along with the complainant to obtain an overdraft facility from the bank.
The offence in the present case does not only cause harm to the victim in this case, but it is also fundamentally detrimental to the entire legal system.