The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the elements of the offences under Section 419 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including fraudulent or dishonest inducement and the intention to cause damage or injury for the offence under Section 468, and the requirement of deceiving a person fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property for the offence under Section 419.

SURESH KAIT, J.

1. Vide instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment dated 04.04.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, Delhi, whereby he dismissed the Criminal Appeal filed by petitioner against the judgment dated 17.01.2011 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, Delhi whereby convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 419/468 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The facts in brief of the case are that the complainant made complaint against the petitioner as under:-

“During routine check one individual claiming to be a ex-Lance Naik of Pioneer Corps was found in Catt. Area. On checking his document, it was found that the individual is impersonating as an ex-serviceman of Pioneer Corps and claiming to be an PVC awardee of 1971. On checking up from concerned Unit it is confirmed that no PVC was awarded to above name individual. It is also brought to your notice that the individual had falsely represented his case to Director General, Border Road Organisation, New Delhi and cheated them of `5,000/-by claiming to be a PVC awardee and in financial distress. It is a clear case of impersonation with the purpose of cheating the government authority. The documents produced by the individual in support of his claim are false.”

3. On the above mentioned complaint, case was registered against petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon investigation, charge-sheet was filed against petitioner prima facie for the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accordingly, charges were framed against petitioner, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that the instant petition has been filed by Mr. D.P. Mathur, Advocate. During arguments, this Court felt that aforesaid Advocate was not able to assist the Court properly, therefore, this Court requested Mr. D.S. Kohli, Advocate present in court to argue the instant petition on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Kohli, learned advocate accepted the same and argued the matter and same was reserved for judgment on 28.02.2012.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that vide impugned judgment dated 17.01.2011, learned Trial Court while acquitting the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 420/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860; however, convicted for the offence punishable under Section 419/468 Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that learned Trial Judge after filing of the charge-sheet, had directed further investigation. The petitioner continued to remain in custody; subsequently, he was medically examined. He was admitted to Institute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS). Therefore, the trial proceedings were dis-continued and the case file was consigned to Record Room.

7. As per the medical report , the petitioner was suffering from a chronic psychotic state (delusional disorder) and required long term supervision for at least one year. Subsequently, on 27.02.2006 the proceedings were revived. The director of IHBAS observed in the report that the petitioner had shown gradually improvement in the treatment and was not required to be hospitalised and not to be detained any further.

8. Thereafter, witnesses were examined and the petitioner was represented by legal practitioner of his choice. He stressed on one point that he was a Param Veer Chakra (in short ‘PVC’) awardee. The trial judge observed that illusion was with reference to this fact alone, otherwise he behaved normally and was responsive. Accordingly, the petitioner was found fit for the further proceedings, therefore the prosecution witnesses were examined.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the charges against the petitioner were framed for the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 420 Indian Penal Co