CHEATING

Cheating is defined under Section 415:

1. By making deception practice on victim, the accused fraudulently or dishonestly, induces the person,
to deliver the property of any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property.

2. By deception upon the victim, the accused intentionally induces the person to do or t omit to do
something which he would not do if he were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or likely
to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation of property.

In summary cheating involves:

a) a deception

b) the person deceived is induces to:

1) deliver any property to any person

2) Consent to any person retaining property

3) Do or omit to do something which cause harm to the victim

Punishment

Section 417

Aggravated offences of cheating: 418, 419, 420

Deception

Not defined in the Penal Code

To make false representation by words or conduct to another person knowing it to be untrue and
causing such person to believe such fact.

May either be an express or implied deception

May be by words or conduct

PP v Alinsung Geb Urbasik Axel & Anor:

- It is not necessary that the false pretense should be made in express word, if it can be inferred
from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused (A) in obtaining the property.

Mohd Jalani bin Saliman v PP:

- There must be deception that must be caused by A to generate inducement in the mind of the
victim. It can be conduct or words. What is sufficient to constitute deception is depends on the
facts of each case.
- Must have element of misleading. It is inducing a person to believe as true something which is
false. Deception may or may not be the sole of main inducement.
Gour’s Penal Code of India (10th edition) Vol 4:

- To attract the application of Section 415, it is not necessary that the representation made by
accused should be the sole cause of damage or loss. It is sufficient if the complainant was part
materially though not entirely influenced by the false representation of the A.

Chow Dih v PP

- A was charged with cheating 6 patient by specified sum of money over different periods by
deceiving them into believing that there are suffering from various serious ailments.
- A was convicted an appeal, it was contended that there was no evidence to show that
deception was effective cause for the patient to keep returning to receive treatment.
- It is proven that, each patient was properly treated with genuine medical patterns which was
the real reason they keep returning.
- It is to deceiving them into believing they were suffering from various serious diseases and
needed follow-up treatment.
- Held: It is not necessary that the representation made by the A should be the sole cause of
damage and loss. It is sufficient if the complainant was partly and materially, though not
entirely influenced.

There can be cheating even in the case of an illegal transaction.

Rex v Lim Cheng Soo

- The complainant (C ) agreed to purchase 1000 forged $ 1 notes for the price of $388.
- However, the bundle only contains genuine notes on top, but the bottom and the middle only
blank papers.
- The A was first acquitted but on appeal the court held: a prosecution could be carried out for
cheating even if the transaction is illegal. The appeal was allowed.

No deception, no offence

Narayansamy Rajaram v R

- The C wanted to make statutory declaration for which the stamp fee was $1 for which he paid
$3.
- The evidence showed that $1 was for the stamp, $2 was to the A for making out the declaration
- Held: In cheating, it was necessary to show that the A had deluded the C into believing the
stamp fee was $3. However, $ 2 was for doing something the A was not obliged to do and for
which the C did not know English had to get someone to do.
- No deception.
Induce delivery or retention of property.

Deception only one of the element of cheating and not the only element.

Khoo Kay Jin v PP:

- There can be no cheating unless by reason of deception the person deceived is induced to part
with any property or to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit but for the
deception.

Under the 1st part of Section 415: cheating is committed when, the person deceiving by reason of the
deception to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property.

Pasupathy Kanagasaby v PP

- Under 1st part of Section 415, the moment a person is deceived and by the practice of such
deception a property is fraudulently or dishonestly obtained from him. The offence of cheating
is committed.

Fraudulent

Under the first part of Section 415 the inducing must be fraudulent and dishonest.

Rtantal Dhirajal, The Law of Crime 25 Edn: “fraudulently’ is defined in section 25 as follows:

- A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does a thing with intend to defraud but
otherwise.

Dishonestly

Define in Section 24 of the PC:

- Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to the person, or wrongful
loss to another person irrespective of whether the act causes actual wrongful loss or gain is
said to do that thing “dishonestly”

PP v Alinsung Ger Urbasic Axel & Anor

- Section 415 does not require that both fraud and dishonesty to be proved. One or the other is
sufficient but there must be inducement of a person to deliver property to another or to do
something which he would not do if he was not deceived.

A finding as to who suffered the damage or harm resulting from the delivery of property is irrelevant.

It is not necessary that the person deceived should be the person who suffered the loss.
Pasupathy Kanagasaby v PP

- The deception was practiced on the officer of the EPF while the delivery of money was done by
officer Maybank.
- The question of who suffered the loss was totally irrelevant.
- The offence was complete the moment the money was delivered no matter who would have to
bear the loss finally.

PP v Kalpanath Sigh

- In cheating, there is no requirement that the person cheated must own the property that
involved: “any property” sufficed.
- However, it is not every form of dishonestly inducing a person to deliver property that amounts
to an offence of cheating.
- Only those form of it in which dishonesty consisted of deceiving of the person concerned.

Low Cheng Swee v Rex

- The A insured his car with 2 companies which he claims for repairs in respect of same accident.
- The A was convicted of cheating but there was no evidence to show that the A was aware of the
condition and policies which limit to only one claim.
- No cheating, appeal was allowed.

Mohamed bin Kasdi v PP

- There was evidence that the C was induced to pay $200 for the post of religious teacher. When
he did not receive the position he lodges police report for cheating.
- On evidence, the $200 was for obtain help in relation to the post and it was wrong assumption
to say that he had been deceived when he was not.

Foo Tiang Kwang v PP

- A was charged with cheating the C by inducing her to give him $300 by falsely pretending that
he was in position to obtain blood for a transfusion for her husband.
- The A then went to his friend for assistance to give blood purportedly for A relative.
- Held: No cheating as she paid $300 for a pint of blood and this was in fact supplied.
Second part: Do or omit to do anything

Laxman Ramchandra Suryavanshi v State of Mysore:

- The following was said of the 2nd part of Section 415”

 Then occurs the 2nd part which provides that if a person intentionally induced the
deceived person to do or to omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived
 Which act or omission causes or likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body,
mind reputation or property, he cheats.

Under 2nd part, the inducing must be intentionally and unlike the 1st part involving the delivery of
property.

The intentional act or omission induced by the deception in the 2nd part must cause damage or harm to
body, mind, reputation or property.

Khoo Kay Jin v PP

- To establish cheating, the C must show that he was induced to do or omit to do something, but
also the commission or omission caused or was likely to cause him some harm or damage in
body, mind, reputation or property.

It is worthy a note that an offence under Section 415(b) where a person is induced into doing or to omit
to do something is punishable as simple cheating under Section 417 of the PC.