Full Judgment
R.S. Garg, J.
1. The applicant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20-2-1998 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1996 confirming the judgment dated 12-4-1996 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rewa in Criminal Case No. 2259 of 1990 convicting the applicant under Section 420 read with Section 511, IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 100/-, has preferred this revision petition.
2. The short facts necessary for disposal of the present revision petition are that the applicant Suresh Kumar Sharma on 4-10-1990 came to the office of Prabhakant Katare (P.W. 2). Executive Engineer in the Office of Rural Engineering Services and informed him that from the Secretariat of the Chief Minister letter No. 474/CMS/90 dated 1-10-1990 has been issued in favour of the present applicant with a direction to give him an appointment. P.W. 2 Prabhakant Katare got suspicious, therefore, kept the letter with him and asked the accused to come after 3/4 days. Immediately thereafter, said Prabhakant Katare enquired from the Secretariat of the Chief Minister about the genuineness of the letter. He was informed that such letter was not issued from the Secretariat of the Chief Minister. The matter was reported to the Police and, therefore, an offence was registered against the present applicant.
3. The applicant took the defence that the letter was genuine and he has not committed any offence. However, the learned trial Court found the applicant guilty for offence under Section 420/511 and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 100/-.
4. As the appeal proved futile the appellant is before this Court.
5. Shri Patel, learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that present is a case of no evidence because the applicant had received the letter through post and there is nothing on the record to show, suggest or prove that the applicant forged the letter or cheated anybody. It was also submitted that the applicant is a disabled person and, therefore, there was no reason for him to commit the offence of cheating. It was lastly submitted that the offence would not fall under Section 420/511 but would come under Section 417/511.
6. Shri R.S. Patel, learned Additional Advocate General for the State, on the other hand submitted that the prosecution was required to prove that the letter on which the present applicant was relying was not issued from the office of the Chief Minister and if such burden was discharged then the present applicant was required to prove that the letter written in his interest was not a fraud or the accused did not propose to cheat anybody.
7. Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'Cheating' as under:
415. Cheating - Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any persons shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat'.
Section 417 provides that whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Section 420, IPC is an aggravated form of Section 117. Section 417 provides punishment for simple cheating while Section 420 provides punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Section 420 reads as under:
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property - Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
8. From a perusal of Section 420 it would clearly appear that not only a person should be cheated but such person should be dishonestly induced and deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or any thing which is signed or sealed or which is capable of being converted into a valuable security.
9. In the present case undisputedly by the alleged action of the accused, Prabhakant Katare was neither induced or deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything, which is signed or sealed, and which was capable of being converted into a valuable security. Under the circumstances the learned Courts below were absolutely unjustified in convicting the applicant under Section 420 read with Section 511, IPC.
10. From the facts it would clearly appear that the applicant riding on the alleged letter was trying to persuade. Prabhakant Katare (P.W. 2) to do an act which he would not have otherwise done. The action of the present applicant was to secure employment and such employment would not have been given by Prabhakant Katare except under the pressure of such letter. The applicant, therefore, can safely be convicted under Section 417, IPC which is a lower charge or a smaller charge.
11. From the facts it appears that the applicant had remained in jail immediately after his arrest and also remained in jail for about 10 days after his conviction by the Appellate Court. Taking into consideration that the applicant is a disabled person and is facing the ordeal of the trial etc. since 1990. I am of the considered opinion that the jail sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount is maintained.
12. The revision filed by the applicant is partly allowed. While maintaining the fine amount, I reduce the substantive jail sentence to the period already undergone.
13. The accused is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged.