Defense Options for Section 420 of Bangladesh Penal Code

Section 420 of the Bangladesh Penal Code deals with the offence of cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. The section reads as follows:

“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 for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

If someone is accused of committing an offence under section 420 of the Penal Code, they may use several defenses to argue against the charges. Some of the common defenses that can be raised in such cases include:

1. Lack of intent: The accused can argue that they did not have the intent to cheat or deceive the victim into delivering the property. In such cases, the prosecution must prove that the accused had a dishonest intention to cheat the victim.
2. No delivery of property: The accused can argue that they did not induce the victim to deliver any property. To establish the offence under section 420, it is essential that the accused induced the victim to deliver some property.
3. Mistake of fact: The accused can argue that they made an honest mistake of fact and did not intend to cheat or deceive the victim.
4. Unenforceable contract: The accused can argue that the contract between them and the victim was unenforceable, and therefore, there was no dishonest inducement of delivery of property. For example, if the contract was void due to illegality, impossibility, or lack of capacity, then the accused can argue that the contract was not enforceable.
5. Good faith belief: The accused can argue that they had a good faith belief that they were entitled to the property or that the transaction was legitimate. For example, if the accused believed that they had a valid claim to the property, then they can argue that they did not have a dishonest intention.
6. No evidence of cheating: The accused can argue that there is no evidence of cheating or deceit, and that the prosecution has not been able to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
7. Coercion or undue influence: The accused can argue that they were coerced or unduly influenced by someone else to engage in the transaction. In such cases, the accused can argue that they did not act voluntarily and that they were forced to act against their will.
8. Exculpatory circumstances: The accused can argue that there were exculpatory circumstances that justify their actions. For example, if the accused was under duress or had to act in self-defense, then they can argue that their actions were justified.
9. Entrapment: The accused can argue that they were entrapped by law enforcement officials or other parties into committing the offence. In such cases, the accused can argue that they would not have committed the offence if they had not been induced or encouraged to do so.
10. Insanity: The accused can argue that they were not of sound mind at the time of the offence and that they did not have the mental capacity to understand the nature of their actions. In such cases, the accused can argue that they should not be held criminally responsible for their actions.
11. Lack of evidence: The accused can argue that there is insufficient evidence to support the charges against them. In such cases, the accused can argue that the prosecution has not been able to establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
12. Mistake of law: The accused can argue that they were unaware that their actions constituted an offence under the law. In such cases, the accused can argue that they did not have the intent to commit a crime as they were not aware that their actions were illegal.
13. Voluntary restitution: The accused can argue that they have made voluntary restitution to the victim, and that this should be taken into consideration in determining their sentence. In such cases, the accused can argue that they have taken responsibility for their actions and have made efforts to make amends.
14. Statute of limitations: The accused can argue that the prosecution has exceeded the statute of limitations, which is the time period within which criminal charges must be filed. In such cases, the accused can argue that the charges should be dismissed as they are time-barred.
15. Lack of knowledge: The accused can argue that they were not aware of the facts that would constitute the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Penal Code. In such cases, the accused can argue that they did not have the knowledge or the intention to cheat or deceive the victim.
16. False allegations: The accused can argue that the victim has made false allegations against them due to some personal vendetta or motive. In such cases, the accused can argue that there is no evidence to support the victim’s allegations and that they are baseless.
17. Mistake of identity: The accused can argue that they were mistaken in their identity and that they were not the person who committed the offence. In such cases, the accused can argue that they have been wrongly identified and that they are not responsible for the offence.
18. Intoxication: The accused can argue that they were intoxicated at the time of the offence and that they did not have the mental capacity to understand the nature of their actions. In such cases, the accused can argue that they should not be held criminally responsible for their actions due to their state of intoxication.
19. Provocation: The accused can argue that they were provoked into committing the offence by the victim or someone else. In such cases, the accused can argue that they were acting in self-defense or in response to the victim’s actions.
20. Lack of intention: The accused can argue that they did not have the intention to cheat or deceive the victim. In such cases, the accused can argue that they entered into the transaction in good faith and did not intend to cause any harm or loss to the victim.
21. Misrepresentation: The accused can argue that the victim was aware of the misrepresentation made by the accused, and therefore, cannot claim to have been cheated. In such cases, the accused can argue that the victim had the opportunity to conduct their own due diligence and that they cannot hold the accused responsible for their own negligence.
22. Consent: The accused can argue that the victim consented to the transaction, and therefore, there was no dishonest inducement of delivery of property. In such cases, the accused can argue that the victim was fully aware of the terms of the transaction and that they agreed to it voluntarily.
23. Lack of consideration: The accused can argue that there was no consideration for the transaction, and therefore, there was no valid contract. In such cases, the accused can argue that there was no delivery of property in exchange for the accused’s promise, and therefore, there was no cheating or deception involved.
24. Abandonment: The accused can argue that they abandoned the transaction before it was completed, and therefore, there was no dishonest inducement of delivery of property. In such cases, the accused can argue that they did not complete the transaction and did not take possession of the property, and therefore, they cannot be held responsible for any harm or loss suffered by the victim.

It is important to note that the defense that can be used will depend on the specific circumstances of the case, and legal advice should be sought to determine the best course of action.