Ramnath vs State of Chhattisgarh

G. Minhajuddin, J.—The criminal revision has been filed under S. 397 read with S. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 28-2-2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Cr. A. No. 2/2000, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10-1-2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur in Cr. Case No. 2338/87, has been affirmed, dismissing the appeal of the applicant. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued against non-applicant-Karia under Ss. 107, 116(3) of Cr. P. C. in Misc. Cr. Case No. 564/ 87 pending in the Court of SDM, Ambikapur, non-applicant-Karia appeared before the Court of SDM, Ambikapur. Applicant-Ramnath had come to the Court along with non-applicant-Karia for the purpose of his bail. The applicant went to the reader to the SDM, Ambikapur and by pretending himself to be Genda, s/o Manglu, submitted the Rin Pustika, which was in the name of Genda, s/o Manglu, to reader B. P. Soni. However, on suspicion, when reader B. P. Soni again asked the name of the applicant, then he disclosed his name as Ramnath s/o Paras. Thereafter, Reader B. P. Soni submitted the said Rin Pustika before the SDM and informed him about the incident. The SDM sent a written report (Ex.P/3) to Police Station, Ambikapur for taking action against the applicant.

Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties and considering the material available on record, by the judgment dated 10-1-2000 convicted and sentenced the appellant under S. 419 of the IPC, against which the applicant preferred an appeal, and the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned judgment.

For proving the offence punishable under S. 419 of the IPC, the prosecution has examined Reader B. P. Soni (P.W. 1), Reader B. R. Rajwade (P.W. 2) and Peon Baijnath (P.W. 3).

From the statement of Reader B. P. Soni (P.W. 1), it appears that a miscellaneous criminal case bearing No. 564/87, State v. Bhola and four others, was pending in the Court of SDM, Ambikapur, under the preventive Chapter VIII of Cr. P. C. (under Ss. 107 and 116(3) of Cr. P. C.) and an arrest warrant was issued against non-applicant-Karia and Vishwanath Nai. He has further stated that on 3-12-1987, non-applicant-Karia had appeared along with his surety, who had disclosed his name as Genda, s/o Manglu and had brought Rin Pustika (Bhu Adhikar Avam Rin Pustika, Part-I and II), which was in the name of Genda s/o Manglu. However, subsequently on interrogation, he (applicant) had disclosed his real name and stated that he is Ramnath s/o Parasram, whereupon the matter was reported to the Presiding Officer of the Court (SDM), who sent a written report in this regard to Police Station, Ambikapur, on which offence under S. 419 of the IPC was registered against the applicant and the Rin Pustika (Bhu Adhikar Avam Rin Pustika, Part-I and II) was seized by the police from him (B. P. Soni, P.W. 1) in the presence of witnesses.

The other Reader B. R. Rajwade (P.W. 2) has corroborated the statement of Reader B. P. Soni (P.W. 1).

Now the question is - whether merely on the basis of the fact that the applicant appeared in the Court of SDM with Rin Pustika (Bhu Adhikar Avam Rin Pustika, Part I and II), which was in the name of Genda s/o Manglu, and disclosed his name as Genda and subsequently, disclosed his real name, an offence under S. 419 of the I.P.C. can be said to have been committed?

Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce S. 416 of the I.P.C, in which cheating by personation has been defined and S. 419, in which cheating by personation has been made punishable :

Cheating by personation

A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Punishment for cheating by personation

Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

If the statements of B. P. Soni, Reader (P.W. 1) and B. R. Rajwade, Reader (P.W. 2) are taken as gospel truth, even then, at the most, it can be said that the applicant on 3-12-1987 had appeared in the Court of SDM, Ambikapur along with non-applicant-Karia of Misc. Cr. Case No. 564/87 pending under Ss. 107, 116(3) of Cr. P. C., with Rin Pustika (Bhu Adhikar Avam Rin Pustika, Part I and II), which was in the name of Genda s/o Manglu, and on being asked, he had, at the first instance, disclosed his name as Genda s/o Manglu and when asked again by Reader B. P. Soni (P.W. 1), he had disclosed his real name as Ramnath s/o Parasram. In addition to this, nothing has been attributed to the present applicant because when subsequently the applicant had disclosed his real name, the matter was reported to SDM, Ambikapur, who in turn, reported the matter at Police Station Ambikapur and thereafter, criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Jas Vs. State of U.P., has held that to constitute an offence punishable Under S. 419 of the I.P.C, all the ingredients of S. 415 of the IPC must be presented. It would be proper to reproduce S. 415 of the I.P.C, which reads as under:

Cheating

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 of 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.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held in the case of The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Padam Singh, that for an offence of cheating by personation, cheating is an essential ingredient of the offence and an accused cannot be convicted under it unless it is established that he cheated someone by personation. In para 7 of the aforesaid judgment, the High Court of M.P. has observed thus :

In order to constitute an offence under S. 416 of the Indian Penal Code there must be cheating in addition to personation and the personation must be for the purpose of cheating. Thus cheating is an essential ingredient of the offence. Cheating is defined in S. 415 of the Indian Penal Code as under:--

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.

It is no doubt true that under the explanation to S. 415 of the Indian Penal Code a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section but deception by itself does not amount to cheating unless the person so deceived is induced to do any of the acts specified in the section which he would not have done if he were not so deceived.

In the instant case, the applicant had only appeared with non-applicant-Karia in the Court of SDM, Ambikapur, along with Rin Pustika (Bhu Adhikar Avam Rin Pustika, Part I and II), which was in the name of Genda s/o Manglu, and at the first instance, disclosed his name as Genda s/o Manglu, and later on, his real name as Ramnath s/o Parasram. The applicant neither submitted any bail papers nor had stood as a surety for non-applicant-Karia. Nothing further has been alleged against the applicant, on the basis of which it can be said that in addition to presenting himself as Genda, the present applicant has also committed an act of cheating.

In view of the above, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the offence punishable under S. 419 of the I.P.C. stood committed by the appellant. In the result, the instant criminal revision is allowed. The impugned judgment dated 28-2-2001 passed by Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur) in Cr. A. 2/2000, confirming the judgment dated 10-1-2000 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur passed in Cr. Case No. 2338/87 is hereby set aside. Consequently, the applicant is acquitted of the charge under S. 419 of the I.P.C. The applicant is on bail, therefore, his bail bonds are cancelled and he is set at liberty. The fine amount, if deposited, shall be refunded to the applicant.