STATE OF ORISSA Vs. KRUSHNA CHANDRA SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is against an order of acquittal of the respondent who stood his trial for having cheated the informant, Dr. Pravat Chandra Chowdhury, on 21-12-1982 by falsely impersonating himself to be Manoranjan Mohapatra, an I.A.S. Officer on probation. It was alleged in the F.I.R. (Ext. 1) that Pravat Chandra Chowdhury was a Medical Officer of Remuna Primalry Health Centre and on 21-12-1982 at 12 Noon, the respondent-accused met him and identified himself as Manoranjan Mohapatra, I.A.S. on probation. He showed him a letter purported to have been issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, and told him that he had come to investigate into the activity of C.I.A. Agents who have got relationship with the Nurses and Lady Health Visitors of the Primary Health Centre. Al those nurses and Health Visitors were not present, the accused told Dr. Chowdhury that he was going to the market and would come after some time. While leaving the place, however, the accused told Dr. Chowdhury that if he would receive an appreciable amount of money then he would not proceed with the enquiry. Dr. Chowdhury thereafter doubted the credentials of the accused and lodged the F.I.R. at Remuna Police Station. The Officer-in-charge took up investigation and ultimately filed the charge-sheet on completion of the investigation against the accused-respondent under Ss.419, 420/75, Indian Penal Code. The accused, however, was charged for having committed the offences under Ss.419 and 420, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The learned trying Magistrate held the accused guilty under S.419, Indian Penal Code, but acquitted him of the charge under S.420, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The accused, therefore, preferred an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the conviction against the accused and remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh disposal according to law with a further direction that the trial Court should issue summons to defence witnesses as per the address given by the accused. After remand, the learned trial Magistrate took steps for production of, defence witnesses, but ultimately the defence declined to examine them and accordingly on the existing materials the case was heard and disposed of. Five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and none on behalf of the defence. Relying on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution case against the accused under S.419, Indian Penal Code, had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. But so far as the charge under S.420, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there were no materials that by any inducement, the informant delivered any cash to the accused and accordingly the offence under S.420, Indian Penal Code, had not been established. The accused was accordingly acquitted of the said charge. The accused preferred an appeal from the jail to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has reappraised the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the Magistrate overlooked the glaring contradictions in the prosecution case. After sifting the evidence and on a thorough discussion of the same, the learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the oral evidence as put forth by the prosecution was full of surmises and as such could not be believed. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ultimately held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge under S.419, Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the accused was entitled to benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the criminal appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused were set aside and the accused was set at liberty forthwith. It is this order of acquittal which is being challenged in this Government Appeal.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor mainly contends that the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 should have been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Judge committed an error in discarding their evidence. He tuck me through the depositions of these witnesses. After perusing their evidence and on going through the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I am of the opinion that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not committed any error in appreciating the oral evidence on record. The appreciation of evidence made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge so as to interfere with the same. Then again, S.419 provides : - "Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Section 416 defines "cheating by personation" to mean,