Sadho Lal v. Emperor Opposite Party.

1. In this case the petitioner Sadho Lal has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under S. 420, I.P.C The facts found against him are that he owed the complainants Rs. 650 and in order to create evidence that he had paid that Rs. 650 filed a registered envelope with blank sheets of paper and posted it to the complainants after insuring it for Rs. 650. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner, firstly, that the offence of cheating has not been committed and, secondly, that an acknowledgment of receipt of an insured parcel is not a valuable security and thirdly, that the judgment of the District Court is not in accordance with law in that no attempt has been made to discuss the defence evidence. In the latter ground there is no substance. We have been carefully through the defence evidence and note that it is entirely at variance with the explanation given by the petitioner to the inspecting officers of the Postal Department when making inquiries into this matter. The learned Magistrate had pointed this out and the learned Judge was fully justified in his acceptance of this part of the lower Court's judgment without comment. We are in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts found do not amount to a complete offence of cheating.

2. They do amount to an attempt to cheat. We also agree that an acknowledgment of receipt of an insured parcel is not a valuable security. It is merely evidence that a parcel of some sort was delivered to the complainants and cannot operate as a discharge of any liability and is not, therefore a valuable security. The petitioner should, therefore have been charged with an attempt to commit an offence under S. 417. Under Section 237(2) of the Cr PC, of 1898 it is set forth clearly that when an accused is charged with an offence he may be convicted of having attempted to commit that offence, although the attempt is not separately charged. There is nothing in this case which calls for our interference save that the maximum punishment under S. 417 read with S. 511 would be six months' rigorous imprisonment, whereas the petitioner has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.

3. The sentence must, therefore be reduced to one of six month's rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner must surrender to his bail and serve out the remainder of this sentence.

V.S/R.K

4. Conviction altered.