Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
Anish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.23646 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.16465 and 16466 of 2023
Decided on : 20-12-2023
CRIMINAL - IMPERSONATION - SECTION 482 CR.P.C., SECTION 173(8) CR.P.C., SECTIONS 120-B, 419, 420 IPC - The court discussed the provisions of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. regarding the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings, and Section 173(8) which allows for further investigation. The court emphasized the importance of expert opinions in fingerprint analysis, referencing the exact science of fingerprint identification, which played a crucial role in establishing the identity of the impersonator. The interpretations of these sections influenced the court's decision to dismiss the petition to quash the supplementary charge sheet, affirming the validity of the evidence presented against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Anish Kumar, sought to quash a supplementary charge sheet filed against him for impersonating Devendra Kumar during a recruitment examination for Multi Tasking Staff in the Income Tax Department. The prosecution alleged that Anish Kumar unlawfully wrote the examination on behalf of Devendra Kumar, supported by fingerprint analysis and other evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the supplementary charge sheet was valid, as it was based on substantial evidence, including expert opinions confirming that Anish Kumar's fingerprints matched those on the admission certificate. The court noted that the original admission certificate was available and that the evidence collected was sufficient to establish the case against the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the supplementary charge sheet filed against Anish Kumar was valid and whether the evidence collected, including fingerprint analysis, was admissible and sufficient to support the charges of impersonation and cheating.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the science of fingerprint identification is exact and does not allow for doubt. It ruled that the evidence presented, including expert opinions and the original admission certificate, was sufficient to establish the identity of the impersonator, thus justifying the continuation of the proceedings against Anish Kumar.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition to quash the supplementary charge sheet, affirming that there was no merit in the petition and that the prosecution had sufficient evidence to proceed with the case.
ORDER :
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.3383 of 2016 in which charges framed against the petitioner based on the supplementary charge sheet filed on 27.06.2023 and quash the same.
The Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.3383 of 2016, in which, charges framed against the petitioner based on the supplementary charge sheet filed on 27.06.2023 and quash the same.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief:
2.1. A complaint was made by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (Headquarters) (Admin-cum-Vig.), Chennai, on 21.09.2015 against one Devendra Kumar S/o Rajendra Pasad of Bihar, who had joined as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) through Staff Selection Commission in the office of the Income Tax Department in a fraudulent manner by indulging in impersonation, forgery and cheating. The further allegation is that Multi Tasking Staff Part-I examination was held on 16.02.2014 and Part-II examination was held on 17.08.2014 and Devendra Kumar was selected and nominated by the Staff Selection Commission, Southern Region for the post of Multi Tasking Staff (hereinafter referred to as “MTS”).
2.2. The complainant had issued proceedings dated 27.01.2015 directing the said Devendra Kumar to report for duty in the Income Tax Department on or before 09.02.2015. Accordingly, the said Devendra Kumar joined duty on that day itself i.e.,27.01.2015 and as per procedure, while joining service, the left thumb impression of Devendra Kumar was obtained by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, (Headquarters) (Admin-cum-Vig.), Chennai, in the presence of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Headquarters) (Admin.) on 11.08.2015 and the same was sent to the State Crime Records Bureau, Chennai-600 028 for comparison along with the original left Thumb Impression already obtained in the Admission Certificate of Staff Selection Commission while appearing for the written examination.
2.3. During comparison, the expert opined that the finger print impressions obtained from Devendra Kumar did not match with the Admission Certificate, thereby, inferring that the exams for Part-I and Part- II were attended and written by two different persons. However, during investigation, the persons, who had appeared for examination could not be traced and thereby, charge sheet was filed against the said Devendra Kumar(A1) alone before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai on 28.12.2015. At the time of filing Final Report, the respondent had informed that a Supplementary Charge Sheet under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., would be filed after unearthing the other facts relating to the case and tracing the person, who had appeared for the examination on behalf of A1-Devendra Kumar.
2.4. Later, during further investigation, it was found that A2- Anish Kumar was the person impersonated as A1-Devendra Kumar and unlawfully wrote MTS Part-II examination held on 17.08.2014 at Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School, Egmore, Chennai-8. In the Admission Certificate, A2-Anish Kumar had written his Mobile No.9155399417 as his contact number. Customer Agreement Form (CAF) details of the said mobile number was obtained from Uninor/Telenor Bihar Circle on 18.12.2015 and it disclosed the name of the subscriber as “Surati Devi, mother of A2-Anish Kumar. Further, during the course of investigation, specimen finger impressions including Left Thumb of A2- Anish Kumar were obtained voluntarily in the presence of independent witnesses at Hilsa, Bihar and the same were sent through the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Chennai to the Superintendent of Police(FB), Finger Print Bureau, Chennai for comparison and expert opinion vide letter D.N.1148/2022 dated 06.07.2022 and the Expert vide Opinion/Report/Certificate No.32/FPB/Crime/2022 dated 26.07.2022, had given positive opinion that “the Questioned Left Thumb Impression marked as QT-2 found against the name
AI
The court established that fingerprint analysis is a reliable method of identification, and the admissibility of expert opinions is crucial in cases involving impersonation and fraud.
Charge memoranda in disciplinary proceedings based solely on handwriting expert opinion without corroborative evidence or prior inquiry are unsustainable, being stigmatic and procedurally flawed.
The main legal point established is the conclusive evidence of impersonation and possession of documents leading to the upheld conviction and sentence under Sections 120-B and 420 IPC.
Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature or handwriting and in the event of the slightest doubt, leave the....
At CrPC Section 227 discharge stage, prima facie case assessed sans detailed evidence scrutiny; submitted photocopies qualify as primary evidence; investigating officers may obtain voluntary specimen....
The prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case of forgery or misappropriation against the petitioner, leading to the quashing of all proceedings.
The court confirmed that Section 311 Cr.P.C. allows for recalling witnesses and summoning evidence when essential for a just decision, emphasizing the necessity for careful exercise of this power to ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
