GAJAPATI PANDA RAMANI RANJAN Vs. PURNA CHANDRA PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the three petitioners stand convicted Under Sections 419/34 and 468/34, IPC, and sentenced to R. I. for six months as also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ - each, in default to undergo S. I. for one month on each count with direction that the sentences would run concurrently. The conviction and sentence were also confirmed in appeal.

(2.) THE opposite party, complainant filed the complaint on 17 -1 -1983 with allegations that the petitioners in Criminal Revision Nos. 678/88 and 18/91 approached . him on 20 -1 -1930 with the petitioner in Criminal Revision No, 18/91 Narayan Prasad Nayak impersonating himself as one Ramani Ranjan Patel, who is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 711/88, and gave out Ramani Ranjan had purchased certain trees from some person for the felling and selling of which he was short of funds for which he desired to have the opposite party as a working partner. The petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 678/88, Gajapati Panda, was known to the opposite party because of which he believed Narayan and a special power of attorney was executed by Narayan holding himself out as Ramani Ranjan and denti - fied to be so by Gajapati. Because of the special power -of -attorney the opposite party deposited a sum of Rs. 3,000/ -, with the Forest authorities as royalty for the trees and obtained the receipt therefor. Later on he took steos to fell the trees and dispose them of and for the purpose contacted PW 6, a saw mill owner, and collected Rs. 4,000/ - from him as advance. In the process he came to know that Narayan had impersonated himself to be Ramani Ranjan who was another per son. Then Ramani Ranjan assured him to stand by and own the power of attorney and to work out the trees on partnership basis with fifty percent profit to each and also executed another special power of attorney in favour of the opp. Party. Because of the second power of attorney the opposite party parted with the money receipt of Rs. 3,000/ - and waited to receive the T. T. permit but Ramani Ranjan did not give the permit to him and instead disposed of the timber. Earlier, the opposite party had spent Rs. 5,000/ - to fell the trees and process those as timber. Thus while he had incurred a total expenditure of Rs. 8,000/ - and had contacted with PW 6 to sell the timber at a much higher price, yet without earning any profit, because of the deception practised, he had to return Rs. 4,000/ - to him. He hence issued a registered advocate's notice to all the petitioners on 13 -8 -1982 to make good his loss but since no reparation was made, he filed the complaint on 17 -3 -1983. Both the learned Courts below relied upon the evidence of the opposite party examined as PW5 as credible and supported by PW6 and other witnesses, believed the fact of impersonation by Narayan as Ramani Ranjan and that such impersonation had been believed by the opposite party because of the identification by Gajapati who was known to him, and further holding that Ramani Ranjan having ratified the power of attorney executed by Narayan had a part to play in the impersonation, convicted the petitioners. The findings, the convictions and the sentences were confirmed by the appellate Court.

(3.) HENCE even though it is a fact, as was found by both the Courts below, that Narayan had impersonated himself as Ramani Ranjan and that such impersonation was believed by the complainant due to the representation made by Gajpati who was earlier known to him, yet the charge Under Section 419, IPC cannot be said to have been brought home against any of the petitioners. There is no discussion in the judgments of the Courts below as to how the petitioners are guilty of offence Under Section 468, IPC. That section relates to commission of forgory where the forged document is intended,to be used for the purpose of cheating. 'Forgery' as defined Under Section 463, IPC relates to making any false document with intent to cause damage or injury inter alia to a person or to support any claim or title, etc. Making of a false document is defined Under Section 464, IPC. No part of the prosecution case falls Under Section 468, IPC as satisfying the ingredients of Sections 468 and 464, IPC since therein no cheating is involved and mere execution of document by Narayan would not invite the charge Under Section 468, IPC as the agreement cannot be said to have been used for the purpose of cheating.