ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(D.B.)
R.K. Shukla and O.P. Mehrotra, JJ.
State of U.P. - Appellant
versus
Ram Dhani Pande -Respondent/Accused
Government Appeal No. 2137 of 1974
Decided on 24-10-1986
A.G.A. -For the Appellant.
A.B.L. Gaur, Advocate-For the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
In the second conviction for a similar offence of cheating and forgery the punishment of 3 months rigorous imprisonment awarded by trial court enhanced to two years rigorous imprisonment considering the fact that the lenient view of the previous court did not have sufficient deterrent effect on the accused.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468, and 471-Respondent charged and prosecuted for the offences under-Respondent convicted for the offence under section 471 of the Code only - Appeal against acquittal of the respondent for the aforesaid remaining offences-Respondent pretending to be the brother of the: then Minister L.S.G.D. approached various Engineers with forged letters purporting to have been written by the then Minister for Irrigation and Power and thereby induced those Engineers to give employment to certain candidates-Whether any of the said offences under sections 419, 420, 466, 467 and 468 I.P.C had been established against him ? (Yes)

       Held, that the cheating in the present case was made possible by impersonation as well by forgery of the aforesaid three letters. There can be no doubt that this was a clear case of cheating in as much as the respondent had induced the engineers concerned to give appointments to certain candidates by representing to them that he was the brother of Sri Varmeshwar Pandey, Minister L.S.G.D. and also by producing before them forged letters purporting to have been written by Sri Tambreshwar Prasad, Minister of Irrigation and Power, in which also the respondent was described as brother of Shri Varmeshwar Pandey. In any case, the respondent intentionally induced the persons so deceived viz. those engineers to do something which they would not have done if they were not so deceived The statements of these engineers further show that they would not have given appointments to those candidates if the accused-respondent had not mis-represented and had not brought the disputed letters purporting to have been written by Minister, Irrigation and Power. They further stated that the act of the respondent caused mental damage as well as damage to their reputation. Thus all the ingredients of section 419 I.P.C were present in this case. The respondent was, therefore, guilty of the offence under section 419 I.P.C. (Para 20)

       There was definite evidence on the record that by cheating the officers, the respondent dishonestly induced them to make or prepare appointment letters and deliver the same and on that basis appointments were actually given to Ram Murti and certain other candidates who were still in service. The letter of appointment of Ram Murti dated 19-10-1967 is on the record as Ext. Ka 28 and the same was proved by Sri V.M. Mangalik (P.W. 8). The statement of Sri R.K. Sanyal (P.W.7) shows that the candidates who were given appointments on the basis of the forged letters produced by the respondent were still in service and they could not be removed on account of certain difficulties. P.W.8 V.M. Mangalik and P.W. 9 B.P. Singh had also stated that the act of the respondent caused mental damage to them, There can be no doubt that the letter of appointment was "property" and also "valuable security" with in the meaning of those terms appearing in section 420 I.P.C. (Para 21)

       Further held, the charge under section 468 I.P.C. (forgery for purposes of cheating) was fully established. We have already mentioned above that the learned Sessions Judge did not carefully peruse the statement of Sri Shivram Singh, Hand Writing Expert, (P.W.13) and made an erroneous statement that the three letters in dispute were not sent to him for comparison and opinion. On that basis, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to hold that it had not been proved as to who committed the forgery. The fact remains that the three disputed letters were actually sent to the band writing expert and he has given a definite opinion that these disputed letters (Ex. Ka-26, Ka-29 and Ka-30) were written by the same person who wrote the specimen writing (viz. the accused). It was thus established that these letters had been forged by the respondent. The facts and circumstances of the case further shows that he forged these letters with the intention that they shall be used for the purposes of cheating and that he actually used them for this purpose. Consequently, the respondent was clearly guilty of the offence under section 468 I.P.C. (Para 22)

       (ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471-Respondent convicted under section 471 sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months-Respondent had committed similar crime of cheating on an earlier occasion by impersonating himself as Consolidation officer and wasc9nvicted under section 420/170 IPC-Held: Respondent should be sentenced to undergo R.I for one year under section 419 I.P.C. for two years under section 420 I.P.C. and for two years under section 463 I.P.C. (Para 23)

       Held, it would thus appear that besides the offence under section 471 I.P.C. of which the respondent was held guilty and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, he was further guilty of the offences under sections 419, 420 and 468 I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and ten months respectively for the two offences but in appeal the sentences were reduced to four months and three months respectively. The respondent admitted that he was convicted under sections 170 and 420 I.P.C. and further stated that be had undergone the sentence. Thus this was the second conviction of the respondent for a similar offence. It appears that as the sentence awarded to the respondent in the earlier case was not severe and was reduced by the appellate court, the same did no sufficient deterrent effect on him, so that he was persuaded to commit a similar and more serious offence. It is correct that more than 12 years have passed since the delivery of the judgment by the Sessions Judge yet keeping in view of the facts and circumstances (If the case and especially the fact that this was the second offence of this nature committed by the respondent, we are of the opinion that the respondent should be sentenced to undergo RI. for one year under section 419 I.P.C. for two years under section 420 I.P.C. and for two years under section 468 I.P.C. (Para 23)