Bangalore District Court
H.L. Nandish, Pi vs Rafi Basha on 20 November, 2025
KABC030359892020
Digitally
DEEPA signed by
VEERASWAMY DEEPA
VEERASWAMY
Presented on : 17-08-2020
Registered on : 17-08-2020
Decided on : 20-11-2025
Duration : 5 years, 3 months, 3 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 20th Day of November, 2025
C.C. No.8027/2020
(Crime No.67/2018)
State by R.T. Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
1. Sri Rafi Basha,
Aged about 42 years,
S/o Sri Syed Husain,
R/at No.5/42A, Apparao Street,
Madanapalli,Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh.
KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020
2. Sri R.Suresh,
Aged about 45 years,
S/o Sri Rajaram,
R/at No.6/135,
3rd Street, TNHB Colony,
Koraturu, Chennai,
Tamilnadu.
3. Sri Bhaskar,
Aged about 46 years,
S/o Sri Narasimhalu,
R/at No.26/57, Shajoor,
Chittoor District,
Andhra Pradesh. ... Accused
(Represented By Sri Arfoz Pasha, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of 17-03-2018
offence
2. Date of FIR 17-03-2018
3. Date of Charge sheet 14-06-2019
4.Name of Complainant Sri H.R.Nandeesh, PI,
R.T. Nagar PS
5. Offences complained of Under Section 420, 511 of
IPC
2
KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020
6. Date of framing of 05-05-2023
charges
7.Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 19-06-2023
of evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 20-11-2025
reserved
10. Date of Judgment 20-11-2025
11. Final Order Accused No.1 to 3 is
acquitted
12. Date of sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of R.T. Nagara Police Station submitted charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable under Section 420, 511 of IPC.
2. Prosecution Case: On 17-03-2018 at about 1.00 pm. CW1 along with pancha CW2 and CW3 and police officials CW4 to CW7 raided on accused No.1 to 3 behind HMT Ground, Near Public Toilet, CBI Road, within the limits of R.T.Nagar Police Station limits, who were trying to sell banned Turkey Lirasi currency 3 KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 to the public for meager amount with an intention to make wrongful gain thereby committed the alleged offence.
3. First Information Report: On receipt of report along with properties from CW1 Sri H.L.Nandeesh, PSI, CW8/PW4 Sri Raghavendra.R., the then HC of R.T.Nagara PS registered FIR as per Ex.P3, recorded the voluntary statement of accused and statement of witnesses and handed over the case papers to CW9.
4. Investigation: On the receipt of case papers from CW8, CW9/PW3 Smt. K.S.Premkumari, completed the investigation and submitted charge sheet against accused for the the alleged offences.
5. The accused No.1 to 3 were enlarged on bail by the order dated 19-03-2018.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had taken cognizance for the offence alleged against the accused No.1 to 3.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the accused No.1 to 3.
4KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and counsel for accused No.1 to 3, charge for the offences punishable U/Sec.420, 511 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained to the accused in the language known to them, who, in turn, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in order to establish its case cited 9 witnesses examined 4 witnesses and exhibited 3 documents and MO1 and closed their side. CW1 reported to be dead. On account of examination of CW6, the examination of CW7, CW3 to CW5 were given up by the order dated 30-09-2024 and 28-10-2025 respectively.
10. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the accused No.1 to 3 were examined as per section 313 of Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all incriminating evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on the record.
5KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020
12. The following point are arises for consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on 17-03-2018 at about 1 pm, behind HMT Ground, Near Public Toilet, CBI Road, within the limits of R.T.Nagar Police Station limits, the accused No.1 to 3 with common intention was attempting to sell Turkey Lirasi currency to the public for meager amount with an intention to make wrongful gain thereby resulted in commission of offences punishable under Section 420, 511 read with Sec.34 of IPC?
2. What order?
13. The Court's findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
6
KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020
REASONS
14. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the prosecution examined the following witnesses as under i. CW2 namely Sri Syed Rizwan, mahazar witness examined as PW1 identified his signature on mahazar on Ex.P1 as per Ex.P1(a) and pleaded ignorance about the contents of the same. In this regard, the learned Senior APP has cross examined this witness by treating him as hostile witness however no favorable answers has been elicited from him to support the prosecution case.
ii. CW6 namely Sri Basavanthraj, PC examined as PW2 deposed that, on 17-03-2018, on receipt of credible information that banned Turkish currency notes were being sold and hence he along CW1, staff and pancha witnesses went to CBI road in a government jeep and found the accused persons who were in the Car and trying to sell the Turkish currencies to the public. Thereafter, CW1 raided accused persons, seized 100 banned Turkish currency notes- Lirasi, from the possession of accused No.1 as MO1 through Ex.P1 mahazar.
7KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 iii. CW9 Smt. K.S.Premkumari, WPSI, examined as PW3 deposed about submission of charge sheet against the accused.
iv. CW8 Sri Raghavendra, HC, examined as PW4 deposed that, on 17-03-2018 he received report from CW1 along with accused persons and seized property, registered FIR as per Ex.P3, subjected the seized property under PF No.28/2018, recorded the voluntary statement of the accused and the statement of witnesses and handed over the case papers to CW9 for further investigation.
15. The first charges leveled against accused is under Sec. 420 of IPC and the relevant provision for section reads as under:
Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property-- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 8 KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
A fraudulent or dishonest
inducement is an essential
ingredient of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
The ingredients of the offence of cheating are as follows:
1) Deception of a person by making false representation which the maker knows or has reason to believe is false and thereby
2) (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such person:
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
(b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes 9 KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.
16. The words 'dishonestly' and 'fraudulently' are defined as follows:
''24. "Dishonestly"-- Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".
25. "Fraudulently"-- A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.'' Section 23 IPC defines wrongful loss/ wrongful gain: ""Wrongful gain": Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.
"Wrongful loss": Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled."10
KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 Thus, the ingredients in the backdrop of these definitions, it is evident in order to attract the offence of cheating, a person must knowingly make a false statement which would induce another to part with property or to do or omit to do a thing which the latter would not do or omit unless deceived and thereby is likely to suffer damage/harm in body, mind, reputation or property.
17. In the case of Dr. Sharma's Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. & Ors reported in (1998) 8 SCC 745, the Hon'ble Apex Court held mere deception by itself would not constitute cheating unless the other essential ingredient, i.e., dishonest inducement is established and held in paragraph 3 as follows:
"...both the learned courts have rested their findings on deception only and did not go into the question whether the complaint and its accompaniments disclosed the other essential ingredient of the offence under Section 420 IPC namely, dishonest inducement.
18. "Dishonesty" has been defined in Section 24 IPC to mean deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss; and when with such intention, deception is practiced and delivery of property is induced then the offence under Section 420 IPC can 11 KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 be said to have been committed..." In the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr reported in (2000) 4 SCC 168, this Court reiterated that Section 415 IPC contemplates two distinct situations;
the first where a person is dishonestly induced to deliver property, and the second where a person is induced to do or omit an act which, but for the deception, he would not have done or omitted.
In the former, the inducement must be fraudulent or dishonest, whereas in the latter it need only be intentional. Therefore, intention is the gist of the offence.
It could thus be seen that for attracting the provision of Section 420 of IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of IPC are made out and the person cheated must have been dishonestly induced to deliver the property to any person; or to make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security. In other words, for attracting the provisions of Section 420 of IPC, it must be shown that the FIR/complaint discloses:
(i) the deception of any person;12
KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020
(ii) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person; and
(iii) dishonest intention of the accused at the time of making the inducement.
19. The averments with regard to the present complaint as xxxxx ನಂತರ ಪಂಚರು ಹಾಗೂ ಸಿಬ್ಬಂದಿಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ 13.15 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಇಲಾಖೆಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಬೊಲೇರೋ ಜೀಪ್ ನಂ-
ಕೆಎ 02 ಜಿ 1556 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಥಳದಿಂದ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ದೂರದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಹನವನ್ನು ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಿ ಎಲ್ಲರೂ ಕೆಳಗೆ ಇಳಿದುಕೊಂಡು ಗಮನಿಸುವಾಗ ಶೌಚಗೃಹದ ಅಂಚಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಮಾರುತಿ ಸ್ವಿಫ್ಟ್ ಕಾರ್ ನಂ- ಕೆಎ 51 ಎನ್ 9943 ನಿಂತಿದ್ದು, ಅದರ ಪಕ್ಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಮೂರು ಜನ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು ನಿಂತುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದರು, ಅವರಲ್ಲಿ ಒಬ್ಬನು ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲವು ಕರೆನ್ಸಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿದಿದ್ದನು. ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಓಡಾಡುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳಿಗೆ ತಮ್ಮ ಬಳಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಟರ್ಕಿ ದೇಶದ ಕರೆನ್ಸಿ ಇದ್ದು ಇದನ್ನು ನಿಮಗೆ ಕಡಿಮೆ ಬೆಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ನಂತರ ಸದರಿ ಅಸಾಮಿಗಳನ್ನು ಪಂಚರ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ 13.30 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಸುತ್ತುವರದು ವಶಕ್ಕೆ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೆಸರು ವಿಳಾಸ ಕೇಳಲಾಗಿ ತಮ್ಮ ಹೆಸರು...... ತಿಳಿಸಿ ತಾವುಗಳು ಟರ್ಕಿ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಷೇಧವಾಗಿರುವ ಕರೆನ್ಸಿಗಳನ್ನು ಇಲ್ಲಿನ ಜನರಿಗೆ ನೈಜವೆಂದು 13 KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 ನಂಬಿಸಿ ರಸ್ತೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಓಡಾಡುವ ಜನರಿಗೆ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಲ ಯತ್ನಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವುದಾಗಿ ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು, ನಂತರ ಸದರಿ ಆಸಾಮಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಹಿಡಿದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿ ರಫಿಬಾಬು ರವರನ್ನು ಈ ಹಣ ನೀವು ಎಲ್ಲಿಂದ ತಂದಿರುತ್ತೀರಿ, ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇದೆಯೇ ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದಕ್ಕೆ ಟರ್ಕಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ರಿಯಾಜ್ ಎಂಬ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಯಿಂದ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದು ನಾವುಗಳು ಈ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಲು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತೇವೆಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು. ........
with the background of this complaint, this court had gone through the oral testimony and documentary evidence to ascertain whether the accused committed the alleged offence.
20. In common parlance, deception implies intentionally leading someone to believe something that is not true. This deliberate inducement may be direct or indirect and by words or conduct. It may be expressed or implied in the nature of transaction. It appears from the record that there was no complaint from public and such being the case, how the CW1 could have suspected that the accused was indulged in selling of Turkey currency to make wrongful gain. To attract penal consequences, it must be shown that the false representation was of a material fact which had induced the victim to either part with property or act in a manner which they would not otherwise do but for such false representation. In the absence of 14 KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 such vital link between the alleged false representation and the selling of Turkey currency, the essential ingredient of offence for cheating is not satisfied and the said principle is appreciated in the case of Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy Versus State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr reported in 2025 INSC 1096.
21. CW1 and PW4 have not taken any photographs or video recorded at the time of seizure of Turkey currency from the possession of accused No.1 as per Ex.P1 as under
1. K05 61 1504
2. K 58 59 8801 3 - 100 K 58 59 8802 - K 58 59 8900
22. Except producing the photographs and the car bearing No. KA -51 - N 9943, no other documents produced by the prosecution to substantiate their version that it was not banned for exchange of Turkey Currency Lirasi as in the year 2018.
23. The currency has been demonetized in Turkey however it is redeemable and legal tender and the same can be exchanged till December 2019 and such being the case the prosecution has not produced any material that the Turkey Lirasi was not available for exchange beyond the year 2015 after it 15 KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 was banned in Turkey and the possession of said Turkey Lirasi in India is illegal.
24. In furtherance, what was the necessity for the accused No.1 to 3 to sell for meager amount to the public when the Currency Exchange counter present for exchange of currency notes was available particularly when it was not banned for exchange of Turkey Lirasi.
25. Added to which, panch witness PW1 has not supported the case of prosecution for seizure panchaname dated 17/03/2018.
26. It is a trite law that for the commission of the offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC, there must be an act which would lead to the deception of the person sought to be cheated and the moment a person takes a step forward to deceive, the said person is sought to be cheated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Abhayanand Mishra Vs State of Bihar reported in (1962) 2 SCR 241, has dealt with not only the difference between 'preparation' and 'attempt to commit an offence', but also the offences punishable under Section 420 and 511 of the IPC. The relevant portion of the same is as follows -
16KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 "11. Another contention for the appellant is that the facts proved do not go beyond the stage of preparation for the commission of the offence of cheating, and do not make out the offence of attempting to cheat. There is a thin line between the preparation for and an attempt to commit an offence. Undoubtedly, a culprit first intends to commit the offence, then makes preparation for committing it and thereafter attempts to commit the offence. If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence; if it fails due to reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the offence. Attempt to commit an offence, therefore, can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he 17 KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 commences his attempt to commit the offence. This is clear from the general expression attempt to commit an offence and is exactly what the provisions of Section 511 IPC, require.
The relevant portion of 511 IPC, is:
"Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code ... or to cause such a offence to be committed and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished...."
These provisions require that it is only when one, firstly, attempts to commit an offence and, secondly, in such attempt, does any act towards the commission of the offence, that he is punishable for that attempt to commit the offence. It follows, therefore, that the act which would make the culprit's attempt to commit an offence punishable, must be an act which, by itself or in combination with other acts, leads to the commission of the offence. The first step in the commission of the offence of cheating, 18 KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 therefore, must be an act which would lead to the deception of the person sought to be cheated. The moment a person takes some step to deceive the person sought to be cheated, he has embarked on a course of conduct which is nothing less than an attempt to commit the offence, as contemplated by Section 511. They do the act with the intention to commit the offence and the act is a step towards the commission of the offence. The prosecution has not proved that accused No.1 to 3 made attempt to sell the alleged Turkey currency Lirasi without any iota of cogent evidence.
27. Therefore, as discussed above by taking into account of aforesaid factual deficiencies in the case made out by the prosecution, the accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for an order of acquittal thereby the point No.1 is answered in negative.
28. Point No.2:- For the foregoing discussion and the findings to the above point No.1, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable 19 KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 under Section 420, 511 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 shall be confiscated to State and the interim custody of item No.2 of PF No.28/2018 (vehicle No.KA 51 N 9943) granted in favour of petitioner is made absolute.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and corrected by me in my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of November, 2025) Digitally DEEPA signed by VEERASWAMY DEEPA VEERASWAMY (Deepa.V.), VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
20KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for Prosecution :
PW1: Sri Syed Rizwan Mahazar witness PW2: Sri Basavanthraj, Police constable PW3: Smt. K.S.Premkumari WPSI/IO PW4: Sri Raghavendra Head Constable Documents marked on behalf of Prosecution:
Ex.P1: Raid cum seizure mahazar PW2 Ex.P2: Report PW4 Ex.P3: FIR PW4 Material Objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 : Turkey currency Witnesses examined for the defence: Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Nil DEEPA Digitally signed VEERASWAMY by DEEPA VEERASWAMY VIII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.21
KABC030359892020 CC No.8027/2020 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately ORDER Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty and acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 420, 511 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Accused are set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C their bail bonds shall be in force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) After expiry of appeal period, MO1 shall be confiscated to State and the interim custody of item No.2 of PF No.28/2018 (vehicle No.KA 51 N 9943) granted in favour of petitioner is made absolute.
(v) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru.
22