Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.S. Nehra, J.
Deep Chand - Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
Criminal Revision No. 862 of 1983.
Decided On : 11 March, 1993
CRIMINAL LAW - CHEATING - SECTION 420 IPC - ALTERATION OF GPF ACCOUNT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 420 IPC - ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS - PROOF OF WRONGFUL LOSS - PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS OF OFFICIAL ACTS - DELAY IN DISPOSAL OF CASE - SENTENCE REDUCED TO PERIOD ALREADY UNDERGONE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an official in the office of the Sub Divisional Education Officer, submitted an application for a loan of Rs. 600/- from his General Provident Fund (GPF) account, claiming that he needed the funds for a religious ceremony. The loan was approved and disbursed to him. However, during a subsequent audit, it was discovered that the petitioner had altered his GPF statement to show a balance of Rs. 1225/- instead of the actual balance of Rs. 25/-.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had committed the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by fraudulently obtaining a loan from his GPF account. The court held that the essential ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC were present in the case, including the petitioner's dishonest intention to deceive the authorities, his act of altering the GPF statement, and the wrongful loss caused to the department.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's alteration of his GPF statement constituted cheating under Section 420 IPC? 2. Whether the prosecution had proved the essential ingredients of cheating, including dishonest intention, deception, and wrongful loss? 3. Whether the delay in the disposal of the case warranted a reduction in the petitioner's sentence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Section 420 IPC and held that the petitioner's act of altering his GPF statement to obtain a loan fraudulently amounted to cheating. The court noted that the petitioner had the dishonest intention to deceive the authorities, he had deceived them by altering the statement, and he had caused wrongful loss to the department by obtaining a loan based on the false statement. 2. The court found that the prosecution had proved the essential ingredients of cheating beyond a reasonable doubt. The court relied on the documentary evidence, including the altered GPF statement, and the testimonies of the witnesses to establish the petitioner's guilt. 3. The court acknowledged the delay in the disposal of the case and considered it a mitigating factor. The court held that the petitioner had faced protracted litigation and undergone sufficient mental harassment due to the delay, and therefore, it reduced his sentence to the period already undergone.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's revision petition but limited his sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine was maintained along with the default clause.
A. S. Nehra, J. - Deep Chand, petitioner was convicted under Sections 420, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal on 26-2-1985 and he was sentenced on 28.2.1985 to undergo R.I. for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 420 Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 467 Indian Penal Code and similarly for an offence punishable under Section 471 Indian Penal Code, petitioner was sentenced, to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- All these sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine, he was, further ordered to undergo R.I. for three months. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 1-6-1985, hence this revision petition.
2. The petitioner was, at the relevant time, an official in the office of the Sub Divisional Education Officer, at Palwal. For availing the loan facility from out of the General Provident Fund Account, the petitioner submitted an application Ex. PA for the grant of Rs. 600/- as its loan. The plea of the petitioner was that the funds were required for performing Bhagwati Jagran. The loan application was supported by affidavit Ex. PB and copy of statement of account i.e. Ex. PC. Request of the petitioner was granted by the Department and the loan amount was disbursed to him. It was during the course of checking by the official of the Accountant General Office that it was found that the contribution of the petitioner during the relevant year was only Rs. 25/- and he had made alteration in it so to make it read as 1125/-. It was also found that the petitioner added the word 100 in the interest column and also made alteration in the balance column so that the entry in it (that actually was 25/-) read as 1225/-.
3. The matter was brought to the notice of Sub Divisional Education Officer, who, in turn, brought the facts to the notice of District Education Officer, who, on the instructions of higher authorities, lodged FIR (Ex. PD) with the Police.
4. After the completion of the investigation, the petitioner was challaned and on the basis of the police report and other documents the petitioner was charge sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 420/465 467/468 and 471 Indian Penal Code on 16-10-1982. Petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in support of its case examined PW 1 Uday Singh, Clerk, PW 2 Tara Chand, Clerk, PW 3 Prem Parkash District Education Officer, Faridabad, PW 4 O. P. Gabha, Assistant, PW 5 Manohar Lal Sachdeva, Section Officer, Accountant General Office, Haryana, Chandigarh, PW 6 Bal Raj Sharma, PW 7 Ravi Dutt Sharma. PW 8 Sohan Lal, Teacher, PW 9 Narender Kumar, an official in the office of Accountant General, Haryana, Chandigarh PW 10 Shiv Charan, ASI and PW 11 Kanwar Bhan, Head Constable. Thereafter statement of accused under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code was recorded. He denied the allegations put to him. No defence evidence was, however, led by him.
6. After the order of conviction of the petitioner was announced by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Palwal, petitioner appeared on 27th February, 1985 in his defence as a witness and produced Exhibit DWQS 1/1 and stated on oath that he has received Exhibit DWQSI/1 from the Head Master of Government High School and according to the statement an amount of Rs. 1877/- was in his account of General Provident Fund. Since no witness was examined to prove the authenticity of Exhibit DWQSI/1 by the petitioner, therefore, the same was not taken into consideration by the Courts below.
7. PW5 is Manohar Lal Sachdeva, Section Officer, Accountant General Office, Haryana. His deposition in the Court is that according to the record brought by him only Rs. 25/- stood deposited in the General Provident Fund account of the petitioner. He stated that Ex. PC
AI
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
