CASE COMPILATION | Landmark Judgements of Supreme Court of India in 420 406 and 120B IPC
Landmark judgments by the Supreme Court of India related to sections 420, 406, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). These sections deal with offenses related to cheating, criminal breach of trust, and criminal conspiracy, respectively.
- R. K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration (1962)
In this case, the Supreme Court clarified the elements of Section 420 IPC, which deals with cheating. The court held that dishonest intention at the time of making the promise to deceive someone is essential for an offense under this section.
- Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan (1952)
This judgment dealt with Section 406 IPC, which pertains to criminal breach of trust. The court emphasized that the offense involves the wrongful misappropriation of entrusted property. It established that the mere fact of non-return of property does not constitute an offense unless there is dishonest intent.
- K. T. M. S. Mohd. and another v. Union of India (2010)
This case is significant in the context of Section 120B IPC, which deals with criminal conspiracy. The court clarified that a mere agreement to commit an illegal act is sufficient to establish a conspiracy. It also highlighted that the act itself need not be committed; the conspiracy alone can be punishable.
- Arun Bhandari v. State of U.P. (2013)
In this judgement, the Supreme Court discussed the importance of evidence and the burden of proof in cases related to these sections. It stressed that the prosecution has the onus to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
- State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996)
This case reiterated the principle that Section 420 IPC requires fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. It emphasised that a mere failure to fulfil a promise, without fraudulent intent, is not enough to constitute an offence under this section.
These landmark judgments provide valuable insights into the interpretation and application of sections 420, 406, and 120B of the IPC. They emphasise the importance of establishing dishonest intent, the burden of proof, and the elements necessary to prove these offences.
