The court affirmed the conviction under Section 419 IPC for impersonation and cheating while clarifying jurisdictional principles concerning legal proceedings.

O R D E R

The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam and Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I, Kottayam in C.C No.223/1998 and Crl.A Nos.377/2005 and 359/2005, convicting and sentencing the accused in the said case for the commission of offence under Section 419 r/w Section 34 I.P.C, are under challenge in these revision petitions filed at the instance of the aforesaid accused.

2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:

In connection with a case pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam against the first accused (the petitioner in Crl.R.P No.3461/2006), the second accused (the petitioner in Crl.R.P No.3127/2006) impersonated as PW1 and stood as surety, making use of the land tax receipt of PW1 obtained by the first accused from Village Office, Muttambalam. Accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the aforesaid act in furtherance of their common intention, and availed bail for the first accused from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam in C.C No.223/1995. Thus, the accused committed cheating by personation punishable under Section 419 I.P.C.

3. The offence came to light when PW1 received notice from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam due to the failure of the first accused in C.C No.223/1995 to appear before that Court. Thereupon, PW1 filed a statement before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam reporting that he had no occasion to stand as surety for the first accused. The learned Magistrate directed the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottayam East, to initiate the necessary proceedings. Accordingly, the investigation was conducted and the final report was laid against the petitioners in these revision petitions.

4. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7, and marked eight documents as Exts.P1 to P8. The accused did not choose to adduce any evidence. After an evaluation of the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioners herein guilty of the commission of offence under Section 419 r/w Section 34 I.P.C, and convicted them thereunder. The petitioners were accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine Rs.2,000/- each with a default clause of simple imprisonment for two months. The aforesaid verdict of the learned Magistrate was challenged in appeal by the first and the second accused in Crl.A Nos.377/2005 and 359/2005 respectively, before the Sessions Court, Kottayam. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the above appeals, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate, and accordingly dismissed the appeals confirming the conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioners are here before this Court with these revision petitions.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court committed a fundamental error in identifying the actual offence which arose out of the facts and circumstances of this case. According to the learned counsel, the allegations against the petitioners precisely point to Section 205 I.P.C which deals with false personation for the purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution. Thus, it is contended that the bar under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes into play in th