IPL01061

MAHADEO PRASAD V. STATE OF

WEST BENGAL, AIR 1954 SC 724
The offence of cheating and punishment for the offence
DECIDED ON JANUARY 13TH, 1954 BY A 3 JUDGE BENCH CONSISTING
OF JUSTICE BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS AND V. NAYYAR
 FACTS

- The appellant, Mahadeo Prasad, agreed to acquire 25

tin ingots from the complainant, Dulichand Kheria, on
May 5, 1951. The complainant was to deliver these 25
ingots to the appellant's storage. The complainant
dispatched his jamadar to the appellant's location to
deliver the tin ingots. The appellant accepted delivery
of the ingots but failed to pay the jamadar's fee.
- The jamadar waited for a long time, but the appellant
left the warehouse and did not return. As a result, the
jamadar eventually returned to the complaint and
informed him that, despite the fact that the delivery
had been approved, no payment had been made. The
claimant realised he had been misled after agreeing
to part with these 25 tin ingots in exchange for
payment on delivery from the appellant. As a result,
he led a complaint in the Court of the Additional
Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on May 11,
1951, charging the appellant of defrauding under
Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
fi
FACTS
- The case against the Appellant was proven and convicted by the Additional
Presidency Magistrate in Calcutta, and he was sentenced to one year of harsh
jail.
- The appellant filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence with the High
Court of Judicature in Calcutta. The appellant's conviction and sentence issued
by the Additional Presidency Magistrate in Calcutta were maintained by the
High Court, which dismissed the appeal.
- The appellant filed a special leave petition in order to challenge the High
Court's ruling.
ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT
WHETHER THE APPELLANT INTENDED TO CHEAT AND COMMITTED THE CHEATING
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 420 OF THE IPC?
SECTION 420 OF IPC : CHEATING AND DISHONESTY INDUCING
DELIVERY OF PROPERTY
WHOEVER CHEATS AND THUS DISHONESTLY INDUCES THE PERSON DECEIVED TO DELIVER ANY PROPERTY TO
ANY PERSON, OR TO MAKE, ALTER, OR DESTROY THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF A VALUABLE SECURITY, OR
ANYTHING SIGNED OR SEALED AND CAPABLE OF BEING CONVERTED INTO A VALUABLE SECURITY, SHALL BE
PUNISHED WITH IMPRISONMENT OF EITHER DESCRIPTION FOR A TERM THAT MAY EXTEND TO SEVEN YEARS,
AND SHALL ALSO BE LIABLE TO FINE.
RATIO DECIDENDI
- Justice PN Bhagwati: The High Court correctly remarked that if the appellant promised
to pay cash on delivery and meant to do so, the fact that he did not pay did not turn the
transaction into one of deception.
- However, a case of deception would be made if he had no intention of paying but only
indicated that he would in order to get the complaint to part with the merchandise.
There is no dispute that the appellant miscalculated his readiness to pay cash upon
delivery. He was well aware of his responsibilities, as well as the monies he would
receive from other parties and the payments he would be expected to make.
- The appellant's nervousness about paying was clearly justi ed since he knew he had
taken receipt of the ingots without payment of cash against delivery, and the only way
he could escape criminal culpability was to settle with the complainant.
- When he accepted receipt of the 25 tin ingots, the appellant had no intention of paying
but only agreed to pay cash upon delivery in order to encourage the complainant to
leave with the items.
 DECISION

- The Supreme Court a rmed the High

Court's verdict, nding that it had
correctly convicted the appellant of the
o ence. Based on the foregoing, the
Supreme Court ruled that the appellant
was guilty of cheating under Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced him to one year in jail.
- The appeal was rejected.
ff
fi
ffi
CONCLUSION
THIS IS A CRUCIAL CASE FOR UNDERSTANDING SECTION 420 OF THE IPC. THE
DECISION IN MAHADEO PRASAD V STATE OF WEST BENGAL ESTABLISHED THE
CONCEPT THAT GUILTY INTENTION, OR 'MENS REA,' IS A VITAL FACTOR IN PROVING
THE CHARGE OF CHEATING.

WHEN A PERSON IS CONVICTED OF CHEATING, IT IS CRITICAL TO PROVE THAT THE

DEFENDANT HAD THE PURPOSE TO CHEAT. IN THIS CASE, THE CRIMINAL INTENT WAS
SHOWN, AND THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND GUILTY.
THANK YOU