Skip to main content

Cheating

 CHEATING

INTRODUCTION

Cheating is considered as a criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code. it is finished on the way to benefit earnings or a bonus from every other character with the aid of the use of a few deceitful approaches. the person that deceives any other knows for the reality that it might location the other individual in an unfair scenario. dishonest as an offence may be made punishable below segment 420 of the IPC.

SCOPE OF SECTION 415

Cheating is defined under segment 415 of the Indian Penal Code as whoever fraudulently or dishonestly deceives a person as a way to set off that individual to supply a asset to any character or to consent to keep any belongings. If a person intentionally induces someone to do or pass over to do any act which he would no longer have completed if he changed into now not deceived to do so and the act has triggered harm to that individual in body, mind, popularity or assets, then the person who fraudulently, dishonestly or intentionally brought about the opposite individual is said to cheat. Any dishonest concealment of records which can mislead a person to do an act which he would now not have achieved otherwise is likewise cheating within the meaning of this segment.

CHEATING AND MISAPPROPRIATION

Cheating and misappropriation are closely associated. In cheating, the act of misrepresentation starts from the start of the act, whereas, in case of misappropriation it isn't important that the offence of cheating will start from the start. The accused may additionally achieve a belonging in good religion after which further misappropriate it to be able to promote it for a bonus. it is able to be achieved against the will or without the consent of the owner.
it's miles visible that misappropriation is typically accomplished through a person who's a relative, friend or a recognized man or woman. The offence of misappropriation is defined under section 403 of the IPC. It deals simplest with immovable residences and not with frame, mind, recognition, or immovable belongings.

CASE LAW

In the case of Nageshwar Prasad Sinha V Narayan Singh, the respondent entered into an agreement with the accused. a part of the payment become given in exchange for the ownership which turned into introduced to accused. The accused then didn't make the total fee for the delivery of possession because it changed into agreed upon with the aid of him. The respondent also didn't whole the legal formalities in relation to the transport of ownership as he did not obtain complete price for it. The accused filed a civil suit for unique overall performance towards the respondent. The respondent filed a crook criticism against accused underneath segment 420 of the IPC. The court held that the liability of the accused was of civil nature and not a crook one as the accused made part of the fee for shipping of ownership and it cannot be proved that his purpose changed into to cheat from the very beginning.
The difference between civil and crook liability can be ascertained by way of the aim of the accused. The aim of the accused on the time of inducement ought to be taken into consideration to decide whether the liability of the accused will a civil or criminal liability. Mere breach of agreement can't be considered to be cheating under section 420 of IPC until it is proved that cheating aim turned into gift from the very starting of the transaction.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more