In the landmark case of Felix Ireto v. Inspector General of Police (1959) FSC 228/1958, the Federal Supreme Court of Nigeria considered the distinction between obtaining by fraudulent trick or device and false representation under Section 421 of the Criminal Code.The Offence Of Cheating In Nigeria (Section 421 Criminal Code and Penal Code (Section 325)
This case highlights the fine legal difference between a fraudulent trick or device and mere false pretence.
Facts of the Case Ireto v. I.G.P (1959)
The appellant, Felix Ireto, was a Police Constable at the time of the offence. In March 1957, he was sent to Oviri Village to serve a witness summons on behalf of the complainant. While there, he approached the complainant and falsely represented that the Police Inspector in charge had directed him to demand £15 in order to “assist” the complainant in his case.
After negotiations, the complainant offered £10, which the appellant collected. Importantly, there was no evidence that the Police Inspector authorized or instructed the appellant to demand money.
Based on this, the Magistrate’s Court convicted him of obtaining by fraudulent trick or device contrary to Section 421 of the Criminal Code. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed, and he further appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.
Arguments and Judgment
When the appeal was heard, Crown Counsel for the respondent conceded that the conviction could not be supported. He argued that although the appellant lied and induced the complainant to pay him, fraudulent trick or device had been employed.
The trial judge, however, had earlier reasoned that the offence fell within Section 421, holding that a fraudulent trick could include fraud committed by words or conduct amounting to deception.
“I am of the opinion that the words ‘fraudulent trick or device’ include cases where the fraud is committed by words and or conduct which would amount to a trick.” – Trial Judge
Despite this reasoning, the Supreme Court held otherwise.
The Court found that while a fraudulent trick could indeed involve words and conduct, mere false representation is not synonymous with trick or device.
“While it is true that words coupled with a certain course of action could amount to a trick or device, mere false representation or pretence is not synonymous with trick or device.” – Mbanefo, F.J.
The Court held that Ireto’s conduct amounted only to false representation,which is a distinct offence, but not obtaining by fraudulent trick under Section 421.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the appellant’s acquittal and discharge.
Key Takeaway in Ireto v. I.G.P (1959)
False representation or pretence does not automatically qualify as a fraudulent trick or device.
To sustain a conviction under Section 421 of the Criminal Code, there must be evidence of a deliberate trick or device beyond mere lying. See full view on Criminal Law Note: The Offence Of Cheating In Nigeria (Section 421 Criminal Code and Penal Code (Section 325)
