Back
2012(3) Crimes 257 (Chhatt.)
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
G. Minhojuddin, J.
Ramnath —Applicant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh —Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 136 of 2001
Decided on 30.3.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant:S.R. Sinha, Advocate.
For the State:Akhil Mishra, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
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.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 419—Cheating by impersonation—Conviction by Courts below—Revision—Petitioner had appeared in Court of SDM to execute bail bond for a person facing proceedings under Sections107, 116(3) CrPC—Petitioner appeared with Rin Pustika (Bhu Adhikar Avam Rin Pustika) which was in name of Genda and petitioner disclosed his name as Genda—When asked again he disclosed his real name—Whether petitioner was liable to be convicted for the offence? No.
Held: In the instant case, the applicant had only appeared with non-applicant Karia in the Court of SDM, Ambikapur, alongwith Rin Pustika (Bhu Adhikar Avam Rin Pustika, Part-I & 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 Section 419 of the IPC stood committed by the appellant. (Paras 13 & 14)
JUDGMENT
G. Minhajuddin. J.— The criminal revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 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 Criminal Case No.2338/87, has been affirmed, dismissing the appeal of the applicant.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that pursuant to the warrant of arrest issued against non-applicant Karia under Section 107, 116(3) of Cr.P.C. in Misc. Criminal 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 alongwith 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.P3) to Police Station Ambikapur for taking action against the applicant.
3. 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 Section 419 of the IPC, against which the applicant preferred an appeal, and the same was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the LCR as also the impugned judgment.
5. For proving the offence punishable under Section 419 of the IPC, the prosecution has examined Reader B.P. Soni (PW1), Reader BR Rajwade (PW2) and Peon Baijnath (PW3).
6. From the statement of Reader B.P. Soni (PW1), it appears that at 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 CrPC under Section 107 and 116(3) of CrPC 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 alongwith his surety, who had disclosed his name as Genda, s/o Manglu and had brought Rin Pustika (Bhu Adhikar Avam Rin Pustika, Part-I & 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 Section 419 of the IPC was registered against the applicant and the Rin Pustika (Bhu Adhikar Avam Rin Pustika, Part-I & II) was seized by the police from him (B.P.Soni, PW1) in the presence of witnesses.
7. The other Reader B.R. Rajwade (PW2) has corroborated the statement of Reader B.P. Soni (PW1).
8. 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 & 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 Section 419 of the IPC can be said to have been committed?
9. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to reproduce Section 416 of the IPC, in which cheating by personation has been defined and Section 419, in which cheating by personation has been made punishable:
“416. 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 tha
