Kanagarainam v. Barlholomeuez .
Present: Swan J.
P.KANAGARATNAM, Appellant, and W. A. BARTHOLOMRCJSZ(Inspector of Police), RespondentS. C. 438—J. M. C. Colombo, 44,201
Penal Code—Cheating—Section 403—Meaning of term “ propertya
In a prosecution under section 403 of the Penal Code for cheating anddishonestly inducing a delivery of property, it was proved that tho accusedhad deceived the Assistant Controller of Exchange into believing that he, theaccused, had not purchased foreign exchange for travel for the year 1960and thereby had induced the Assistant Controller to deliver to the accused apermit for foreign exchange for travel to the value of Rs. 750.
Held, that a permit for foreign exchange for travel could be regarded as“ property ” within the meaning of section 403 of the Penal Code.
*(1963) 55 N. L. B. 322 ; 50 t. L. W. 10.* (1949) 39 C,. L, W, 79.
SWAN J.—KanagarcUnam v. Barthalomeusz
AppF,AL from a judgment of the Joint Magistrate’s Court, Colombo.8. Nadesan, -with T. K. Curtis, for the accused appellant.
Mahendrarajah, Crown Counsel, for the Attorney-General.
Cur. adv. vuli.
April 5, 1954. Swan J.—
The appellant was charged on two counts :—(1) that between 21stJuly 1950 and 27th July 1950, he deceived the Assistant Controller ofExchange into believing that he, the appellant, had not purchased foreignexchange for travel for the year 1950 and thereby induced him to deliverto the appellant a permit for foreign exchange for travel to the value ofRs. 750 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 403of the Penal Code.
that he had at the same time and in the course of the sametransaction made a declaration which he knew to be false touching amaterial point in his application and thereby committed an offencepunishable under section 196 of the Penal Code.
The learned Magistrate acquitted him on the second count but foundhim guilty on the first and sentenced him to six weeks’ rigorous imprison-ment. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the offence, if any,of which he could have been convicted was of cheating under section 400inasmuch as the permit which he induced the Assistant Controller ofExchange to deliver to him could not be regarded as property within themeaning of section 403. In my opinion it would come within the ambitof the term property. Dealing with the corresponding section of theIndian Penal Code, to wit section 419, Rattanlal and Thackore in theirtreatise on The Law of Crimes (18th Eld.) at page 1058 make thiscomment:—
“ Whether an article is or is not property does not depend on itspossessing a money or market, value. If it has some special valuefor the person or persons concerned it is property, even though its valuecannot be measured in money. ”
Among the cases referred to by the learned authors are (1) In rePackianathan1 where a person who had .fraudulently induced a healthofficer to give him a health certificate was convicted under section 419and (2) Local Government v. Gangarama where a certificate of havingpassed a certain examination was held to be property within the meaningof the section.
I see no reason to interfere with the conviction or sentence. Theappeal is dismissed.
* 21 Cr. L. J. 478.
* 23 Cr. L. J. 443. ■
P. KANAGARATNAM , Appellant, and W. A. BARTHOLOMEUSZ (Inspector of Police) , Res
Kanagarainam v. Barlholomeuez .