- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Gurdial Singh v. The State Of Punjab .
Factual and Procedural Background
Gurdial Singh was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala, under section 420, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 (or one month's further rigorous imprisonment in default). The Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, dismissed his appeal. Gurdial Singh filed the present revision.
The prosecution's case, as led at trial, was that on 9 November 1966 Sadhu Singh (P.W.1), informed by a relative that the accused had "a young woman to sell," went with Teja Singh to meet the accused. The accused showed Pritam Kaur in a chubara and represented to Sadhu Singh that she was a reliable widow who would live with him. A price of Rs. 1,000 was agreed. On 11 November 1966, Sadhu Singh and Teja Singh paid Rs. 1,000 to the accused in the presence of Head Constable Niranjan Singh and Hari Mitter, after which Pritam Kaur accompanied Sadhu Singh. She lived with him for four days and disappeared on the fifth; efforts to retrieve Pritam Kaur or the money failed. A complaint led to registration of a case and prosecution of Gurdial Singh.
Evidence showed the accused rented and lived in the chubara with Pritam Kaur, and witnesses placed them together frequently.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the facts alleged and proved make out the offence of cheating under section 420, Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner.
- Whether a contract (or transaction) that is void for immorality or public policy negates criminal liability for cheating in respect of money obtained pursuant to that transaction.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's (Appellant's) Arguments
- The petitioner contended that even if the prosecution facts were accepted, he could not be convicted under section 420, Indian Penal Code.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Emperor v. Jani Hira . 15 I.C 793 to support the argument that where a transaction is void for immorality (and civil courts would not grant relief), criminal charge of cheating should not be maintained.
Prosecution's Case
- The prosecution's evidence established that the accused obtained Rs. 1,000 by representing that Pritam Kaur would live with Sadhu Singh and that the accused knew, when receiving the money, that she would not stay with Sadhu Singh and would return to him.
- Witnesses placed the accused and Pritam Kaur living together and corroborated the accused's role in arranging and receiving payment.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Emperor v. Jani Hira . 15 I.C 793. | The case was cited for the proposition that where a contract is void for immorality (e.g., an agreement to let a daughter for concubinage), a conviction for cheating may not be appropriate because there was no dishonest intention at the time of taking money and civil courts would not grant relief for such agreements. | The court found this authority of no avail to the petitioner: it noted that the decision has not been followed by any High Court in India and declined to accept it as controlling here. |
| Yacoob v. Emperor | Considered in relation to the argument that money paid for an illegal purpose cannot sustain a prosecution for cheating. | The court observed that in Yacoob v. Emperor the plea that money paid for an illegal purpose barred a cheating prosecution was held untenable; the opinion indicates that Emperor v. Jani Hira was not followed in that case. |
| Banmali Tripathy v. Emperor | Applied where a person procured a minor married girl for marriage without disclosing prior marriage and obtained money for the transaction. | The Division Bench of the Patna High Court in that case held the accused rightly convicted under section 420; the present court treated that authority as supportive of conviction on similar facts. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court analyzed the evidence and legal arguments as follows:
- Findings of fact: The court accepted the prosecution evidence that the accused obtained Rs. 1,000 by purporting to "sell" or arrange for Pritam Kaur to live with Sadhu Singh; at the time he received the money the accused knew that Pritam Kaur would not stay with Sadhu Singh and that she would return to the accused.
- Legal contention considered: The petitioner relied on Emperor v. Jani Hira to argue that where the underlying agreement is immoral and void, criminal liability for cheating should not follow because a civil court would not grant relief for the contract.
- Assessment of precedent: The court observed that Emperor v. Jani Hira has not been followed by any High Court in India and noted contrary treatment in Yacoob v. Emperor, where the plea that money paid for an illegal purpose precludes cheating was rejected. The court also referenced Banmali Tripathy v. Emperor as an authority upholding conviction where money was obtained in connection with a morally tainted transaction.
- Legal principle applied: The court held that the mere fact that civil relief might be unavailable (because the agreement was void for immorality) does not preclude criminal liability; knowledge and dishonesty at the time of receiving money are central to the offence of cheating under section 420.
- Conclusion from analysis: On the proved facts—that the accused induced payment by false assurances and knew the woman would not remain with the purchaser—the elements of cheating under section 420 were established.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The revision is dismissed and the petition is dismissed.
Implications: The court affirmed the conviction under section 420, Indian Penal Code. The direct effect on the parties is that the petitioner's conviction and sentence stand; although he was on bail at the time of the decision, he was directed to surrender his bail bonds and undergo the unexpired term of imprisonment. The opinion does not purport to establish a new general precedent overturning prior authorities; instead it declines to follow Emperor v. Jani Hira and treats other High Court decisions as more persuasive on the issue.
Jindra Lal, J.:— Gurdial Singh was convicted under section 420, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default of payment of fine to one month's further rigorous imprisonment, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. His appeal has been dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala. Gurdial Singh has come up in revision.
2. The prosecution version is that on the 9th of November, 1966, the first informant Sadhu Singh P.W who was employed in Border Security Force and was on leave, learn from his sister's son Teja Singh that Gurdial Singh accused-petitioner had a young woman to sell Sadhu Singh was a bachelor and on the next day accompanied by Teja Singh, he met the accused at Kapurthala. The accused took them to a Chubara and showed one Pritam Kaur to them. Sadhu Singh and Pritam Kaur had a talk and he was told by her that she was a widow and Gurdial Singh accused assured Sadhu Singh that Pritam Kaur was dependable and would live with him. A price of Rs. 1000/- was settled and on the next day i.e 11th November, 1966, Sadhu Singh and Teja Singh came to Kapurthala and handed over Rs. 1000/- in the presence of Hari Mitter Head Constable Niranjan Singh to the accused Sadhu Singh and Teja Singh were taken to the Chubara and Pritam Kaur came away with Sadhu Singh.
3. She lived with him for four days and disappeared on the fifth day. Sadhu Singh and Teja Singh thereupon went to Kapurthila and found Gurdial Singh accused and Pritam Kiur present in the Chubara. The accused declined to send Pritam Kaur with Sadhu Singh and Pritam Kaur also declined to go. Gurdiil Singh accused also declined to return the money. As the leave of Sadhu Singh was to expire, he went to Nushehra and from there sent a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Kapurthala, on the basis of which a case was registered against Gurdial Singh accused and he was prosecuted.
4. Evidence was led to show that Gurdial Singh accused had taken the Chubara at a monthly rent of Rs. 10/- from Tilak Raj P.W 2 and was living there with Pritam Kaur. Banta Singh P.W 3 was produced to depose that the accused and Pritam Kaur had been living in the Chubara. One rickshaw-puller, Amrit Lal P.W 7, has also stated that the accused and Pritam Kaur used to go many times in his rickshaw.
5. There is not the least doubt that the accused did make money by purporting to sell Pritam Kaur to Sadhu Singh and that at the time he received the money from Sadhu Singh, he was aware that Pritam Kaur was not going to stay with Sadhu Singh and that she would come back to him. It is also clear, that Sadhu Singh parted with his Rs. 1000/- on the assuarance given by the accused that Pritam Kaur was a reliable woman and would stay with him.
6. The only point which was urged before me is that even if the facts as stated by the prosecution are accepted, the petitioner cannot be convicted for an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Emperor v. Jani Hira . 15 I.C 793.. There an accused agreed to let her daughter on hire to the complainant for concubinage for one year in consideration of the complainant paying her Rs. 70/-. The complainant paid Rs. 35/- in advance and subsequently the accused refused to allow her daughter to go to the complainant or to return the money advanced to her. The accused was convicted of cheating. A revision was taken before the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Sessions Judge recommended the revision for acceptance by the High Court. In that case it was held by the learned Sessions Judge that there was no evidence to show that there was any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the accused at the time she took the amount of Rs. 35 from the complainant and it was most probable that at the time she intended to let the complainant have her daughter and on changed her mind later. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that specific performance or compensation or refund would not be granted by the Civil Court as the agreement was void from the beginning for immorality it was opposed to public policy to allow the complainant to get indirectly what he could not get directly from the Court. In the end he observed that he was of the opinion that the offence of cheating was not committed. On the recommendation a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court accepted the revision for the reasons Stated by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Judges observed that the accused and the complainant had entered into a contract which was clearly void of immorality and therefore, the complainant would not be entitled to obtain any relief from a Civil Court for its breach and that is no reason why he should be allowed to prosecute the accused on a charge of cheating. Conviction of the accused, therefore, was set aside.
7. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this authority has not been followed by any High Court in India, in fact in Yacoob v. Emperor2 this authority was not followed. In that case certain persons were being tried for an offence. The accused represented that he could influence the Court in their favour and received money from those persons. The accused was prosecuted for cheating and it was urged for the defence that the money having been paid for an illegal purpose a prosecution for cheating in regard to that money could not be maintained. It was held that such a plea was untenable. Referring to 15 Indian Case 793 the learned Judge observed that in his view that case did not purport to lay down a general principle applicable to such facts and circumstances as were set out in the case before the learned Judge.
8. In Banmali Tripathy v. Emperor, 3 a minor married girl was taken by the accused and got married to one Bharat Tihadi without disclosing that she was already married and the accused obtained Rs. 192 for this transaction. It was held by a Division Bench of the patna High Court that the accused had been rightly convicted under section 420, Indian Penal Code.
9. In my view, therefore, an offence under section 420, Indian Penal Code, has been clearly made out against the petitioner. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no avail to him. In my view merely because Sadhu Singh may not be able to recover the amount from the petitioner in any civil proceedings, does not mean that the offence of cheating has not been made out against the petitioner. This revision, therefore, stands dismissed. The petitioner is on bail. He is directed to surrender to his bail bonds and undergo the unexpired term of his imprisonment.
10. Petition dismissed.
Alert