Does Puffing of Goods by a Vendor Fall within the Pur­view of Cheating or any other Offence (Indian Penal Code, 1860)?

The mere puffing of goods by a ven­dor is no offence. The authors of the Code observe that if all the misrepresentations and exaggerations in which men indulge for the purpose of gaining at the expense of others were made crimes, not a day would pass in which many thousands of buyers and sellers would not incur the penalties of the law.

It happens hourly that an article which is worth ten rupees is affirmed by the seller to be cheap at twelve rupees, and by the buyer to be dear at eight rupees.

The seller comes down to eleven rupees, and declares that to be his last word; the buyer rises to nine, and says that he will go no higher; the seller pretends that the article is unusually good of its kind, the buyer that it is unusually bad of its kind; the seller that the price is likely soon to rise, the buyer that it is likely soon to fall. Here we have deceptions practiced for the sake of gain; yet no judicious legislator would punish these deceptions.

Image Source: imprinttours.com

A simple misrepresentation of the quality of goods is not a false pretence. Any exaggeration or deception in the ordinary course of dealings between the buyer and the seller during the progress of a bargain cannot be the subject of a criminal prosecution.

But when the thing sold is of an entirely different description from what it is repre­sented to be and the statements made are not in the form of an expres­sion of opinion or mere praise, the offence of cheating will be com­mitted.

Where, therefore, the accused induced the complainant to pur­chase a chain from him by fraudulently representing that it was 15- carat gold, when, in fact, it was only a trifle better than 6-carat, knowing at the time that he was falsely representing the quality of the chain as 15-carat gold, it was held that the statement that the claim was 15-carat gold, not being mere exaggerated praise, not relating to a mere matter of opinion, but a statement as to a specific fact within the knowledge of the accused, was a false pretence.

Again, if a man sells milk as pure milk, whereas he knows the mixture to be half milk and half water, he is guilty of cheating. Similarly, in illustration (b) in answer to question 181 (i) the offence committed is of cheating.