According to the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for an act to constitute cheating, there must be a clear intention to deceive from the very beginning. It is not enough for the accused to have been merely

Section 318 and 319 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deal with the offence of cheating. Section 318 (1) says whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived 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 or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat. Explanation - A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. The main ingredient of cheating are as under: 1. Deception of any person 2. a. Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person i. to deliver any property to any person or ii. to consent that any person shall retain any property b. Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if her were not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Cases under erstwhile Law i.e. Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Supreme Court in the case of Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorolla Incorporated and Ors has held that deception is necessary ingredient under both parts of section. Complainant must prove that inducement has been caused by deception exercised by the accused. It was held that non-disclosure of relevant information would also be treated a misrepresentation of facts leading to deception. The Supreme Court in M.N. Ojha and others v. Alok Kumar Srivastav and anr has held where the intention on the part of the accused is to retain wrongfully the excuse duty which the State is empowered under law to recover from another person who has removed non-duty paid tobacco from one bonded warehouse to another, they are held guilty of cheating. In T.R. Arya v. State of Punjab, it was held that negligence in duty without any dishonest intention cannot amount to cheating. A bank employee when on comparison of signature of drawer passes a cheque there may be negligence resulting in loss to bank, but it cannot be held to be cheating.