ABDUL HAMID Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was prosecuted for impersonating as Abdul Rehman before the Additional District Magistrate, Bhopal in the matter of obtaining security for release of one Abdul Jalil. It appears in the present case, that Abdul Jalil was apprehended by the police and taken into police custody under section 151 Criminal Procedure Code. How he went before the Magistrate is not known but it appears that on his production before the Additional District Magistrate, he was asked to furnish surety in a sum of Rs. 2,000/ - for his release. The applicant Abdul Hamid posing himself as his brother Abdul Rehman furnished that security in a printed form that was accepted and the accused Abdul Jalil was released. Later, it transpired that at the relevant date and time, applicant's brother Abdul Rehman was out of station. The applicant was therefore, prosecuted under section 205 read with section 419, Indian Penal Code. Alongwith, two other persons Mohammad Buksh and Saeed Khan, who arrested the surety bond. One Yogesh Shukla, Advocate was also prosecuted but he was discharged. All the three were convicted by the Magistrate for offence under section 205, read with section 419, Indian Penal Code. In appeal, the conviction of the applicant under section 419, Indian Penal Code alone has been maintained the finding recorded by the Magistrate, based on the evidence of M.S. Khan (P.W. 1), Nirmal Kumar (P.W. 2) and Ram Satish Singh (P.W. 4), is that on the relevant date Abdul Rehman was not in Bhopal. Having accepted this testimony of these witnesses, the learned Sessions Judge opined that it was not of any consequence if Abdul Rahman was not examined by the prosecution, for he was bound to shield his brother. The finding based upon evidence that the applicant impersonated his brother before the Additional District Magistrate and thus got Abdul Jalil released is when supported from the material on record and cannot be disturbed in this revision.

(2.) IT was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to ask for any surety for release of Abdul Jalil who was only detained under section 151, Criminal Procedure Code. Since the Magistrate's direction to furnish surety itself was illegal and without jurisdiction, says the learned counsel, the applicant cannot be said to have cheated anyone even if he has impersonated as Abdul Rehman. In my opinion, this argument has no substance.

(3.) IN the instant case, by the deception practised by the applicant, the Magistrate wag induced to pass an order directing the release of Abdul Jalil which order the learned Magistrate would not have otherwise passed. The deception so practised by the applicant has resulted in wrongful gain to Abdul Jalil who could obtain his release. Thus, the offence of cheating is fully established against the applicant. His conviction under section 419, Indian Penal Code, must, therefore, be upheld.