083-NLR-NLR-V-23-THE-KING-v.-CHANDRASEKERA.pdf
1921.
( 286 )
Present: Shaw J.
THE KING v. CHANDRASEKERA.
57—D. C. (Crim.), Chilaw, 3,443.
Cheating—Deception need not be by express words—Conduct—Induce-ment to deliver need not be wholly due to the deceit—Penal Code,s. 398.
A gave a cheque to the accused fpr money borrowed by him, andmade accused understand that he had no money in the Bank.In a few days the accused knowing that the cheque would not bemet on presentation endorsed the cheque and gave it to B to casbit at C*s boutique.. The accused did not accompany B. B madeC understand that it was a good cheque, and said that he wouldbe responsible if it was not met. .
Held, in the circumstances that the accused was guilty of cheating.To constitute cheating it is not necessary that the deceptionshould be by express words or visible representation. It may beequally practised by conduct employed in the transaction itself.
The inducement to deliver need hot have been wholly due to thedeceit independent of other auxiliary causes.
The accused by endorsing the cheque and giving it to be cashedmade a representation, it was a good cheque. Although B saidthat he would be personally responsible if the cheque was not met,none the less C was paying the money on account of the chequeitself.
( 287 )
rj~^HE facte appear from the judgment.
Pereira K.C.t for the appellant.
IUangakoon, C.C., for the Crown.
April 25,1921. Shaw J.—
The accused has been convicted of cheating. The indictmentagainst him charges that he did deceive one Rawther by falselyrepresenting to him that one Rasaratnam had sufficient funds at theBank of Madras to meet a cheque for a sum of Rs. 500, and he didthereby dishonestly induce Rawther to deliver to a man StephenPerera on his behalf the sum of Rs. 500. The facts as found by theDistrict Judge appear to be shortly as follows: Rasaratnam hadborrowed from the accused a sum of Rs. 300, and he gave him acheque for Rs. 500 on the understanding that the cheque shouldnot be presented, and on the statement by Rasaratnam to theaccused that he had no money in the Bank of Madras to meet acheque if it was presented. The accused within a few days afterreceiving the cheque goes and negotiates with a Mr. Ranasinghe forthe purchase of a valuable estate belonging to that gentleman. Hedrives off to see the estate in a car with the son of Ranasinghe anda man named Stephen Perera, who is an associate of the accused, andprobably a person who was acting with him in the fraud that wascommitted. Oh the way the car was stopped at the boutique ofa man named Rawther at Chilaw, who appears to have beenaccustomed to cash cheques. The cheque which had previouslybeen endorsed by the accused was handed to Stephen Perera andRanasinghe to be taken into the boutique for the purpose of in-ducing Rawther to cash it. The accused himself prudently remainedin the car outside. The cheque was presented to Rawther byRanasinghe, who told him that he understood that it was a goodcheque, and said that he would be responsible if it was not met.Thereupon Rawther cashed the cheque, and the money was takenout and handed to the accused, who was sitting in the car. Whenthe cheque was presented for payment at the Bank of Madras it wasdishonoured. The Judge has convicted the accused, and sentencedhim to six months’ rigorous imprisonment: Objection is taken to theconviction on the ground that the offence of cheating has not beenmade out against the accused. In my opinion the decision of theDistrict Judge is correct. The offence of cheating is defined bysection 398 of the Penal Oode: “ Whoever by deceiving any personfraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliverany property to any person is guilty of cheating.’’ It is saidthat there is no evidence of cheating in this case, because there isnothing to show that the accused himself made any direct represen-tation to Rawther. It is also said that the evidence shows that
1921.
The Kingv, Chandra-eehera
( 288 )
4921,Rawther was, in foot, not induced to do what he did by any represen*
tation majie by the accused, bat was induced to pay the money in
9ha.w J»consequence of Ranasinghe, whom he knew, saying that he would be
The King responsible if the cheque was not met. The construction of this*8e°ti°n does not appear to have come before in our Courts, but it has
been dealt with in a good many cases in India under the similarsection of the Indian Code. Gour in section 3331 points out that itis not necessary that the deception should be by express words or*visible representation. But it may be equally practised by conductemployed in the transaction itself. In the present case the accusedby endorsing the cheque and giving & the people who wereaccompanying him for the purpose getting it cashed by Rawtherwas in my view making a representation that it was a good andvalid document, and that so far as he knew it would be inet in thesame way any other commercial document of this sort. If hefesarar, as it is found that he did, that the cheque would not be meton presentation, he was guilty, in my opinion, of misrepresentationto Rawther by endorsing the cheque and getting it cashed by him.With regard to the other point I have mentioned, the witnessRawther says that he cashed the cheque because Ranasinghe whomhe knew promised to be responsible if the cheque was not met. Butnone the less Rawther was paying the money on account of thecheque itself.. He was not lending money to Ranasinghe, but hewas cashing the cheque because the person he knew told him thatit was a good cheque, and that he would he responsible for it. It wasnone the less, however, paying the money for the cheque. It hasbeen held in India that the inducement need not have been whollydue to the deceit independent of other auxiliary causes. It was soheld in England by Bevill C.J. in a case reported in 12 Cox 451. referred to by Gour on the Criminal Law of India, section 3332. Inmy opinion the offence of cheating is made out, and the appeal isdismissed.
Appeal dismissed.