S. Paparao vs The State

G. Yethirajulu, J.—This Revision Case is filed by the accused in C.C. No. 679 of 1999 on the file of the XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

The petitioner was chargesheeted for the offence u/s 420 of I.P.C. The trial Court convicted him for the said offence and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial Court, dated 23-07-2001, he preferred Crl.A. No. 273 of 2001 on the file of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, after going through the material available on record, dismissed the Appeal by confirming the conviction of the petitioner and modifying the sentence of imprisonment from one year to six months without altering the sentence of fine. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the appellate Court, dated 13-08-2002, the petitioner preferred the present Revision Case challenging the validity and legality of the Judgment of the appellate Court by contending that there is no case against the Revision Petitioner and he is the victim of circumstances, therefore, he is not liable for conviction for the offence u/s 420 of I.P.C.

In the light of the circumstances, the point for consideration is:

Whether there is any illegality in the Judgments of the Courts below in convicting the petitioner for the offence u/s 420 of I.P.C.

The prosecution case leading to the conviction of the petitioner is briefly as follows:

The accused appeared for Indian Forest Service Examination, 1992 and Civil Service Examination, 1993. He submitted Ex.P-6 application on 25-07-1992 for Indian Forest Service Examination, 1992 and Ex.P-7 is the candidates attendance sheet, dated 25-07-1992 for the Indian Forest Service Examination, 1992. Ex.P-8 is the application form for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 1993 submitted by the accused and Ex.P-9 is the candidates attendance sheet for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 1993. His date of birth as mentioned in Exs.P-6 to P-9 is 19-06-1961. Ex.P-15 is the extract of Intermediate Admission Register in respect of the accused, wherein the date of birth is shown as 19-06- 1961. Ex.P-16 is the marks extract permanent card of the accused issued by the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, wherein his date of birth is shown as 19-06-1961. He changed his name from Sodapaka Papaiah to Sodapaka Papa Rao and got issued notification to that effect in Andhra Pradesh Gazette Part-II Extraordinary, dated 18-02-1994. The petitioner joined in the service as Agricultural Officer on the forenoon of 19-03-1996. While so, he submitted Ex.P-2 application for Civil Service (Preliminary) Examination, 1998 on 19-12-1997, wherein he declared his date of birth as 15-08-1972. He appeared for the examination held on 31-05-1998. The Union Public Service Commission received a complaint against the petitioner mentioning that the petitioner concealed his original age and shown a wrong date of birth. An explanation was called for and being not satisfied with the explanation, the Union Public Service Commission cancelled the application of the petitioner and debarred him permanently for appearing all the examinations and selections conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. Simultaneously, a complaint covered by Ex.P-1 was also given to the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad and the C.B.I., after thorough investigation, filed a charge sheet in the Court for the offence u/s 420 of I.P.C.

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the prosecution has not established that there was mens rea on the part of the petitioner to cheat anybody, therefore, the lower Court committed error in placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and convicting the petitioner.

The Courts below observed that by producing the changed date of birth, the accused intended to have wrongful loss and that itself is a clear indication that the petitioner had sufficient mens rea to cheat the Government if they do not notice the date of birth. Though the petitioner is fully aware that his correct date of birth is 19-06-1961, he resorted to cheat the Union Public Service Commission trying to mislead them about his eligibility to appear for the examination, therefore, the appellate Court felt that the petitioner is not entitled for any lenient view in the matter, however, reduced the imprisonment from one year to six months.

Sri Vijaya Ramaraju, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if it is considered for a moment that the accused furnished a wrong date of birth in the application, it does not attract the ingredients of Section 420 of I.P.C. and the service commission Rules do not provide for prosecution of an applicant for the wrong entries made by him in the application. As the department debarred him for appearing for the UPSC examinations forever after enquiry, no further action was required to be taken against the petitioner.

He further submitted even if any complaint has to be made, it ought to have been made to the local police, where the offence took place, but addressing the C.B.I. for necessary action is illegal and on that count also, the accused is entitled for the benefit and the convictions imposed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied on a Judgment of A.P. High Court in P.S. Prasad v. State of A.P. 1998 (1) ALT (Cri.) 268 (A.P.).

In the case covered by the above decision, the petitioner and his wife cheated the company as Directors. On behalf of the company, the petitioner filed an application before the Director General of Imports and Exports, New Delhi seeking customs clearance certificate to import 1000 pieces of used auto diesel engines from Singapore and Japan. In the said application, the petitioner mentioned that he would provide funds to purchase the engines and it will start its own workshop to generate employment in Andhra Pradesh for reconditioning and assembling of diesel engines. The petitioner on the advise of the Government officials approached the Manager of SETWIN who in turn recommended the application of the company to the Director General of Imports and Exports stating that the goods will be used by SETWIN for the purpose of imparting training. On the basis of the recommendations, the licensing authority granted licence in the name of the SETWIN and the goods were delivered to a driver at A.P. Bhawan, New Delhi, at the instance of the petitioner instead of sending them to Managing Director, SETWIN or his nominee. The M.D., SETWIN alleged that the petitioner indulged in another shady deal and does not carry good reputation. For the foregoing reasons, the Court held that it cannot be said that any part of these representation can constitute an offence punishable u/s 420 of I.P.C. more so, when the person so fastened that either the licensing authority or the SETWIN have delivered any of the property to the person on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner. The above decision is under a different circumstances and the facts of the present case are different.

In Amir Chand v. Lok Nath AIR 1952 J& K 26, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court while considering the scope of Section 420 IPC, held as follows:

The main ingredients of an offence of cheating are that there should be deception of a person so as to fraudulently or dishonestly induce that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induce that person 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. From this it follows that a willful misrepresentation of a definite fact with intent to defraud would be cheating. Along with this, it has to be shown that the representation made was false to the knowledge of the accused at the time when it was made.

From the above decision, it is clear that willful misrepresentation of a definite fact with an intention to defraud would attract the definition of cheating leading to conviction u/s 420 IPC.

In the present case, the petitioner knowing fully well his correct date of birth misrepresented to the Union Service Commission that the date of birth is a different one with an intention to defraud the Service Commission and make them to grant permission to sit for the examination despite the fact that he was not eligible to sit for the examination as per his original date of birth.

In the light of the above circumstances, I do not find any force in the contention of the petitioner''s counsel that the ingredients of Section 420 IPC are not attracted.

After going through the entire material, I do not find any illegality in the Judgment of the appellate Court and there shall be no interference. I do not find any grounds in this Revision Case to take a different view in the matter.

In the result, the Revision Case is dismissed by confirming the Judgment of the appellate Court, dated 13-08-2002.