RAM CHARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition of accused Ramcharan is directed against the appellate judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Bundi, dated July 20, 1962, upholding the judgment of Munsiff-Magistrate First Class, Bundi, dated July 1, 1961, by which the accused had been convicted of offences under sec. 468 and 417 I. P. C. He has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months and a fine of Rs. 200/-for the offence under sec. 468 I. P. C. while a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 6 months has been imposed for the other the offence under sec. 417 I. P. C. In default of payment of the fine, the accused has been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 4 months. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE allegations of the prosecution may be briefly stated. Accused Ram Charan held a general power of attorney on behalf of Smt. Kaushlya Bai, who was related to him. In order to take possession of two fields in village Chadgaon (Khasra Nos. 55 and 190) and two other fields in village Hirapur (Khasra Nos. 13 and 33), he forged the following documents with the purpose of using them as genuine - (i) Letter (Ex. P. 2) No. 1603 dated May, 19, 1954, purporting to issue from Commissioner, Kotah Division, to Tehsildar, Keshorai Patan, about the fields in village Hirapur. (ii) Letter (Ex. P. 1) No. 1571 dated May 13, 1955, purporting to issue from Commissioner, Kotah Division, to Tehsildar, Keshorai Patan, about the fields in village Chadgaon. (iii) A copy (Ex. P. 6) purporting to be a true copy of the judgment of Commissioner, Kotah Division, in a revenue suit between 'smt. Kaushlya Bai and the State and others" in respect of the fields in villages" Chadgaon and Hirapur. (iv) A copy (Ex. P. 10) purporting to be a true copy of letter Ex. P. 1 of Commissioner, Kotah Division No. 1571 dated May 13, 1955, addressed to Tehsildar, Keshorai Patan, about the fields in village Chadgaon and bearing a forged endorsement of the Naib-Tehsildar. It is alleged that the first two of these forged documents were produced by the accused on May 21, 1955, before Azizur Rehman P. W. 3, who was then working as Tehsildar of Keshorai Patan, with the false representation that they were genuine documents. At that time Krishna Ballabh Lakhotia P. W. 2 was the Reader of the Tehsildar, and when he raised an objection that the documents did not bear the seal of the Commissioner's office, the accused gave the explanation that many other papers had been received without seals and "that he had obtained the two letters from the Commissioners office with much difficulty after an effort of 4 or 5 days. Under the instructions of the Tehsildar, Krishna Ballabh Lakhotia then made separate endorsements on the two documents for a compliance of the Commissioner's orders by the concerned 'girdawar'. Those endorsements were signed by Azizur Rehman the same day. THE Tehsildar further gave orders for the delivery of the two letters, with his endorsements, back to the accused so that he might take them personally for securing their compliance. On May 25, 1955, the accused came back to the Tehsildar with an endorsement at the back of letter Ex. P. 1 asking for a clarification from the Tehsildar whether the possession was to be delivered to Smt. Kaushlya Bai or to her agent Ram Charan (accused ). This endorsement had been made by the concerned officer of the Madoli circle and, while presenting it, the accused told the Tehsildar that he held a registered power of attorney on behalf of Smt. Kaushlya Bai and that the possession of the fields could be delivered to him as her agent, THE Tehsildar obtained the 'mukhtar-nama', which happened to be with the Tehsil Accountant in another connect. on, and passed an order on Ex. P. 1 for the delivery of possession to the accused as agent of Smt. Kaushlya Bai. Possession was accordingly given to the accused by Patwari Bhanwarlal P. W. 4 of Chadgaon, in the presence of Girraj P. W. 5. Similarly, possession over the two fields of village Hirapur was given to him by Patwari Hazari P. W. 18 in the presence of Ram Narain P. W. 12. Compliance reports were noted on letters Ex P. 1 and P. 2. THEreupon Tehsildar Azizur Rehman made the mutation entries in the concerned registers on June 8, 1955. Later, the forgeries were detected and first information report Ex. P. 40 was made at the instance of Commissioner, Kotah Division, on August 6, 1955, to the Superintendent of Police. THE police registered the case and challaned the accused on July 24, 1956. It is alleged that, in the meantime, the accused recorded his confessional statement (Ex. P. 23) on August 16, 1955, in the presence of Jalaluddin P. W. 22 who was then posted as Tehsildar-cum-Magistrate Second Class at Taleda. Specimens of the writing of the accused were obtained by Ghanshyamdass P. W. 17, Magistrate Second Class Patan, during the course of the investigation, and were sent to Krishna Behari Lal P. W. 24 who has been examined as an expert.

(3.) AS regard the offence under sec. 417 I. P. C. , it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fields which are said to have been delivered to the accused on the basis of the forged documents on his false representation, did not belong to Tehsildar Azizur Rehman P. W. 3, and that an offence of cheating could not therefore be said to have been committed. The argument has no force. An offence under sec. 417 IPC can be said to be committed both where the accused deceived some one and induced him to deliver a certain property to him by fraudulent or dishonest representation, as also where the person deceived is proved to have done some thing, which he was not bound to do, on a fraudulent or dishonest inducement by the accused, and such an act caused, or was likely to cause, damage to him in body, mind, reputation or property of the person on whom the deception was practised. There is no requirement of the law that the property fraudulently or dishonestly obtained by the accused must belong to the person on whom the deception is practised. The property may be "any property as is obvious from sec. 415 IPC which defines the offence of cheating. Besides, it has been proved that the accused not only deceived the Tehsildar and thereby persuaded him to deliver the possession of the fields to him, but he also intentionally induced him to pass an order for the delivery of the fields which he would not have passed but for the deception. It has also been proved that the deception practised by the accused was likely to cause harm to him in property and reputation and the Tehsildar has stated that he has actually beer} demoted on account of the order which he passed for the delivery of the fields on the basis of the forged documents. It cannot therefore be said that the conviction of the accused for the offence under sec. 417 IPC is unjustified.