BAIJNATH SAHAY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been convicted of an attempt to commit an offence punishable under Section 417, Indian Penal Code. He owed the sum of Rs. 120 to a man named Sant Ram who in December 1931, was absent from Barh at his own home in the Punjab. Sant Ram asked one Banarsi Singh to recover from the petitioner the money which be owed but the petitioner said that he would send the money direct to Sant Ram. He sent a letter insured for the sum of Rs. 120 from the post office at Barth addressed to Sant Ram; but after Sant Ram had signed the acknowledgment of the receipt of this insured letter, it was discovered that it contained nothing but blank sheets of paper. The Courts below found that the petitioner had deceived the complainant and fraudulently induced him to sign the receipt of acknowledgment and this act on the part of the complainant was likely to cause damage to the complainant.

(2.) On behalf of the petitioner it is argued that as there is no evidence to show that the petitioner actually used this receipt in support of the claim that he had paid, he should not be regarded as having cheated or as having attempted to cheat, since he had done no more than mere preparation to cheat.

(3.) The learned Sessions Judge maintained the conviction relying upon the decision of this Court in Sadho Lal V/s. Emperor (1916) 1 PLJ 391 where in similar circumstances a man was convicted of attempting to cheat.