Describe any two and distinguish between the following: [MPCJ 2019]

Describe any two and distinguish between the following: [MPCJ 2019]

(1) Cheating & Criminal breach of trust.

Ans. Section 415 and 405   of the IPC respectively defines the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Both are offences against the property but they differ as under:-

1. In cheating, it is not essential constituent of the offence that there has to an entrustment of any property with the accused. Whereas, for criminal breach of trust there has to be necessarily an ‘Entrustment’ of property or dominion over it to the accused.
2. In cheating at the first instance a deception has to be practiced over the complainant and thereafter a fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver property etc. Whereas, in criminal breach of trust, it is by way of contract or under the provision of law the property or dominion over it passes from the complainant to the accused.
3. In cheating the offender may even cause harm or injury to body, mind and reputation of the complainant. Whereas, in the harm is restricted to the movable property only. Whereas, in criminal breach of trust, the harm is restricted to the property in the form of   dishonest use or disposition of the property in violation of the term of law or contract constituting the entrustment of such property.

(2)  Abetment & Criminal conspiracy.

Ans. Both abetment and criminal conspiracy are inchaote offence. Under section 107 clause secondly one of the recognised modes of abetment is by way of engaging in conspiracy. Subsequent to addition of Sec. 120 A & B in IPC vide 1913 amendment; the conspiracy in Indian is not only a form of abatement but also a substantive offence. But despite of such close affinity, the criminal conspiracy is somewhat wider in amplitude than abetment by conspiracy as contemplated under Sec. 107 of IPC. The main distinction could be mentioned as below:-

1. An abetment may be committed by way of instigation; Engaging in conspiracy or by intentional aid but criminal conspiracy is committed by meeting of minds   or an agreement. So, criminal conspiracy is just one form of abetment and stand in relation of species and genus respectively.
2. For an offence under the second clause of section 107 of the IPC, a mere combination of persons or agreement is not enough and an act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the conspiracy. But, for an offence of criminal conspiracy under section 120 A & B of the IPC, a bare agreement to commit an offence is itself enough to complete the offence without any need of overt or covert act.
3. The Sec. 107 clause secondly is restricted to only offence. So, an abetment by conspiracy can be committed only with respect to any offence. But, section 120 A read with section 43 of the IPC brings out that criminal conspiracy can happen not only with respect to offence but also for an act which is prohibited by law or an act which leads to civil liability.
4. In case of abetment by conspiracy charge has to be framed along with the abetted offence, viz Sec. 109/302 IPC. But, an offence of criminal conspiracy is an independent offence and punishable on its own, viz Sec. 120 B IPC.
5. The act of abettor is punishable under section 108 To 117 of the IPC depending upon the situations. Whereas, the crime of criminal conspiracy is punishable under section 120 B of the IPC.
6. The abettor is not a principle offender. Whereas, in criminal conspiracy each accused is a principal offender.
7. An abetment can be committed by one or more persons, whereas conspiracy can be committed by two or more persons.

(3)  Giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence.

Ans. Section 191 and 192 of IPC respectively defines the offence of giving of false evidence and fabricating of false evidence. The aforesaid both offence is punishable under section 193 of IPC with same amount of punishment. But, with reference to ingredient of offence, they differ as follow:-

1. In giving false evidence, there is making of false statement or false declaration despite of legal obligation to speak truth. Whereas, the offence of fabricating false evidence involves causing of any circumstances to exist or making of any false entry or of any document containing a false statement with a intention that it may appear before judicial proceeding or before public servant or an arbitrator.
2. In giving false evidence, there is general mens rea in the form of knowledge and reason to believe. Whereas, in the offence of fabricating false evidence there has to be a particular intention i.e., to use a false entry etc in evidence in proceeding and to procure the formation of a wrong view on a material point.
3. In giving false evidence, the offence is complete at the moment when a false statement or declaration is made irrespective of the fact that such statement or declaration may not have been in relation to a material point of proceeding. Whereas, in the offence of fabricating false evidence, the fabrication must be on a point material to the proceeding so as to lead court or concerned officer to form an erroneous opinion touching any material object.
4. In giving false evidence, there must be a proceeding, judicial or non-judicial in existence at the time when the offence is committed. Whereas, in the offence of fabricating false evidence, it is enough that there is a reasonable prospect of a proceeding, and the fabricated evidence is intended to be used in such a proceeding.