Back
1980 Supreme(All) 605
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.M. GUPTA, J.
State Of U.P. - Appellant
Versus
Ram Dhani Pandey - Respondent
Government Appeal No. 2658 of 1974
Decided On : 22-04-1980
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Suresh Chandra Tripathi
Dishonest inducement, as an essential element of cheating under Section 420 IPC, can be established through false representations and the use of forged documents to deceive individuals into parting with their property.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTIONS 420, 466, 471 IPC - FACTUAL MATRIX INVOLVING FALSE REPRESENTATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT, FORGED APPOINTMENT LETTERS, AND DECEPTION - INTERPRETATION OF DISHONEST INDUCEMENT AND USE OF FORGED DOCUMENTS - CONVICTION UNDER SECTIONS 420 AND 471 IPC UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent, Ram Dhani Pandey, approached Harihar Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad, representing his ability to secure employment for them in the tube well department upon payment of a fee. He received a total of Rs. 1080/- from them and provided forged appointment letters. Upon discovering the forgery, they reported the matter to the police, leading to the Respondent's arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Respondent had dishonestly induced the complainants to part with their money by falsely representing his influence in securing employment and providing forged appointment letters. The court held that the offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC was established, while the offense of forgery under Section 466 IPC was not proven. However, the court found that the Respondent had used forged documents under Section 471 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the Respondent's actions constituted cheating under Section 420 IPC? 2. Whether the Respondent was guilty of forgery under Section 466 IPC? 3. Whether the Respondent used forged documents under Section 471 IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Respondent's representations and subsequent actions, including providing forged appointment letters, amounted to dishonest inducement, fulfilling the elements of cheating under Section 420 IPC. 2. The court found insufficient evidence to establish that the Respondent himself had forged the appointment letters, thus negating the offense of forgery under Section 466 IPC. 3. The court determined that the Respondent's use of forged appointment letters to deceive the complainants constituted an offense under Section 471 IPC.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, convicting the Respondent under Sections 420 and 471 IPC. He was sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,500/- under Section 420 IPC, with an additional six months of imprisonment in default of fine payment. For the offense under Section 471 IPC, he received a one-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment. Both sentences were to run concurrently. The acquittal under Section 466 IPC was upheld.
M.M. GUPTA, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of Respondent Ram Dhanl Pandey by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur, on charges under Sections 420, 466 and 471 IPC.
2. The facts of the prosecution case are that the Respondent had gone to the shop of Harihar Prasad and Vishwanath Prasad which are close to each other in village Ghatampur within the Police Circle of Ahraura on 11th October 1971. He had represented to him that in tube well department there were five or six vacancies of tube well operators and he would be helpful in getting them appointed. He also represented to them that for this purpose he will have to be paid Rs. 200/- and also the expenses that will have to be incurred in this connection. Both of them believed him as he had been successful in getting other persons appointed in the tube well department. Harihar Prasad requested him to get him appointed and also Jagdish Prasad and Kailash. He demanded a sum of Rs. 600/- from them. Harihar Prasad arranged to pay Rs. 600/- to the Respondent after pawning ornaments. Vishwanath Prasad for the appointment of his son as operator in the tube well department paid Rs. 480/- to the Respondent. He also assured them that he would obtain appointment letters for them within a week. On 21st October 1971 the Respondent Ram Dhani Pandey came to Harihar Prasad's house and told him that he had obtained the appointment letters for Jagdish Prasad and Kaliash. He further demanded a sum of Rs. 200/- from him for Harihar Prasad's appointment and told him that he was going to Varanasi and would bring appointment letter for him on 23-10-1971. The Respondent was believed by them. Harihar Prasad with the appointment letters of Jagdish Prasad and Kailash went to the office of the Superintending Engineer, Tube-Well Department, Varanasi along with Vishwanath Prasad and his son Algu Ram. They went to that office on 22-10-1971 and produced the appointment letters handed over to them by the Respondent to the Superintending Engineer. Harihar Prasad then was informed that these appointment letters were forged and that they should get such a person arrested by the Police. When they were returning from the office of the Superintending Engineer at about midnight in Maidagin Harihar Prasad saw the Respondent coming in a rickshaw. He was followed and was seen entering Bharat Lodge. A report was lodged at Police Station Chetganj by Harihar Prasad, Vishwanath Prasad and Algu Ram on 23-10-1971 at 1 A.M.
3. The Investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Ved Murti Bhatt, SO Chetganj. After lodging of the report he went to the Bharat Lodge and succeeded in arresting the Respondent after causing him minor injuries. On a search being taken a sum of Rs. 250/- in cash and a forged letter of appointment in the name of Algu Ram was recovered from his possession. Its recovery memo was duly prepared by him. Since the offence was committed at Mirzapur the papers were transferred to Mirzapur. At Mirzapur the case was investigated by Sri Nand Lal Singh, SI. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and submitted the charge-sheet against the Respondent.
4. The Respondent denied all the allegations and claimed that he was falsely implicated.
5. The prosecution examined Harihar Prasad PW 1 and Krishna Lal Gupta PW 5 among the witnesses of fact. PW 5 Krishna Lal Gupta is the Superintending Engineer who denied his signature on the letters of appointment. PW 8 Nand Lal is the Investigating Officer. PW 9 Ved Murti Bhatt is the SO Chetganj who had arrested the Respondent. Ram Adhar PW 7 is the Headmoharrir of Police Station Chetganj.
6. The learned Sessions Judge after analysing the evidence came to the conclusion that the basic story against the Respondent was proved beyond any reasonable doubt but after discussing the question whether the offence fell within the four corners of Section 420 IPC he came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the Respondent
