DEVAN ALIAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of nine accused who faced a charge for offences under Ss.120-B and 162 of the I.P.C., only two (the appellants) were convicted, The first appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each for the two counts and the second appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months each.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is this : All the nine accused entered into a criminal conspiracy sometime during the period between April, 1980 and Feb., 1982 in order to obtain illegal gratification from persons who were anxious to join defence forces. The modus operandi designed by them was to represent to the aspirants that if they pay the amounts demanded by the first accused, he would see that they were recruited to the defence services with the help of one Lieutnant Colonel Krishnaiah, who was the Branch Recruiting Officer, at Calicut, and who was pictured as a close friend of the first accused. The accused succeeded in getting some persons as victims drawn into their dragnet. PWs. 1 and 7 paid the amounts to the first accused as demanded. But When they found that they would never get recruited to the forces, they demanded the money back, and the accused returned the money later. P.W. 5, another victim paid a sum of Rs. 6,500/- to the first accused and on failure to get the recruitment, he compelled the first accused to return the money. But instead of returning the whole amount, the first accused issued a cheque for Rs. 3,000/-which, on presentation for encashment, was bounced by the Bank. These are the three counts (among the several counts mentioned in the charge) which the trial court found proved in this case.

(3.) The evidence of PW. 1 shows that he was introduced by the second accused to the first accused in Sept., 1980 and latter impressed upon PW 1 that if a sum of Rs. 3,500/- was paid, he would secure recruitment through Lt.Cl. Krishnaiah, who was his personal friend. The amount demanded was paid to the second accused and later the first accused took PW 1 to the Recruiting Office, but after interview and test, P.W. 1 was found not up to the required standard and hence he was not selected for recruitment. Naturally P.W. 1 pressed for return of the money paid. Ext.P1 cheque (for Rs. 2,750/-) was issued by the first accused and the balance amount was paid by the second accused. P.W. 1's evidence gets support from the evidence of P.W. 24 who accompanied the former to the second accused and later to the first accused also. Nothing has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of these two witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them.