Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Mr. M. Satayanarayana Raju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 2 April, 2024

APHC010848332018
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI             [3330]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

             TUESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
              TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                              PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

                   CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 12069/2018

Between:

Mr. M. Satayanarayana Raju               ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED

                                 AND

The State Of Andhra            ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S)
Pradesh and Others

Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

   1. VENKATA RANGADAS KANURI

Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

   1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The quoted Criminal Petition is filed to call for the

records pertaining to C.C. No.1585 of 2018 on the file of the

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram

and to quash the same.

2. The facts that are succinctly that the petitioner/accused

produced the Schedule Tribes Caste Certificate and obtained

employment illegally in the District Court. One Regu

Maheswararao, who is examined as LW2, has identified that

the accused is not Scheduled Tribe by caste and presented a

representation to the then District Judge, Vizianagaram.

Then, the District Judge has referred the matter to the

Additional District Judge and Head of the Vigilance cell of the

Vizianagaram, to conduct an enquiry into the matter.

Accordingly, an enquiry was conducted and a report was

submitted for prosecuting the accused in accordance with law.

Accordingly, a report was lodged by the LW1 to the Rural

Police, Vizianagaram and the Police has registered the crime

as FIR No.3 of 2018 under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467, 468,

471 IPC. After due investigation, the police have forwarded the

charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. to the Court of

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vizianagaram

and the same was registered as C.C. No.1585 of 2018.

3. The said C.C. was assailed in the Criminal Petition on

the ground that the District Collector itself has not followed

the process in dealing with the correctness of the caste

certificate of the petitioner and hence, unless and until the

enquiry is completed criminal proceedings cannot attract to

the petitioner.

4. And Mandal Revenue Officer, Pachipenta way back in

the year 1990 has issued a caste certificate under Section 21

of the 1993 Act, who is the competent authority prior to the

commencement of the Act 1993, unless it is cancelled in terms

of the procedure contemplated under the Act, the provisions of

the Indian Penal Code would not attract. On the aforesaid

grounds, it is urged to quash the proceedings.

5. Heard Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, learned Counsel

for the petitioner, learned Counsel from the Office of the Public

Prosecutor for the State/Respondent No.1. Despite notice is

served, there is no representation for the 2nd respondent/

defacto-complainant.

6. At the outset, the case against the petitioner/accused is

that he obtained employment in the District Court illegally by

producing a false caste certificate.

7. Learned Counsel appeared for the petitioner would

contend that the Petitioner has not forged any document and

if founds that the petitioner has obtained any appointment by

producing false certificate an action should be taken initiating

disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under service

law and accordingly the disciplinary proceedings in

terminating the service of the Petitioner was set aside by the

High Court where the certificate which is in issue is deemed to

be valid and also referred an observation made by the High

Court which reads as follows:

"It was not the case of the Tahsildar that the signature of the Mandal Revenue Officer was forged therefore, it is contended that no signature of the officer/ authority was forged by the Petitioner/accused"

and further contended that quoted Section against the

petitioner is not applicable to the petitioner accused he would

urge this Court to quash the complaint.

8. The High Court in the order in Writ Petition has not

upheld the certificate produced by the petitioner/accused is

valid caste certificate, the termination of the petitioner/

accused was set aside on the ground but for not following the

procedure as contemplated under the statutory enactment and

permitted the authorities to take action against the petitioner

following the procedure prescribed statutory enactment.

9. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Vimala's case,

it is a fraud with an intention to deceive whether it be from

any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the

ill-will towards the other is immaterial.

10. The essential ingredient to be attracted for the offence

under Sections 467 and 468 IPC is forgery. Forgery is defined

in Section 463 IPC that whoever makes any false document is

said to be committed forgery. Making a false document as

per Section 464 IPC is that whoever dishonestly or

fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or a

part of a document is said to be a false document.

11. The expression 'dishonestly' has been defined in Section

24 IPC that whoever does anything with the intention of

causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to

another person. The expressions 'wrongful gain' and 'wrongful

loss' have been defined under Section 23 IPC that a gain by

unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not

legally entitled and loss by unlawful means of property to

which the person losing it is legally entitled.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Vimala vs The Delhi

Administration1 have considered the English decision

elaborately and relevant paras extracted hereunder:

Let us now consider some of the leading text book writers and, decisions to ascertain the meaning of the word "fraudulently".

The classic definition of the word "fraudulently" is found in Steplien's History of the Criminal law of England, Vol. 2, at p. 121 and it reads

"I shall not attempt to construct a definition which will meet every case which might be suggested, but there is little danger in saving that whenever the words "fraud" or intent to defraud" or "fraudulently" occur in the definition of a crime two elements at least are essential to the commission of the crime : namely, first, deceit or an intention to deceive or in some cases mere secrecy ; and secondly, either actual injury or possible injury or to a risk of possible 'injury by means of that deceit or secrecy............. This intent is very seldom the only, or the principal, intention entertained by the fraudulent person, whose principal object in nearly every case is his own advantage................. A practically conclusive test of the fraudulent character of a deception for criminal purposes is this : Did the author of the deceit derive any advantage from it which could not have been had if the truth had

1 AIR 1963 SC 1572

been known ? If so it is hardly possible that the advantage should not have had an equivalent in loss or risk of loss to someone else, and if so, there was fraud."

13. It would be seen from this passage that "'fraud" is made

up of two ingredients, deceit and injury. The learned author

also realizes that the principal object of every fraudulent

person in nearly every case is to derive some advantage

though such advantage has a corresponding loss or risk of

loss to another. Though the author has not visualized the

extremely rare situation of an advantage secured by one

without a corresponding loss to another, this idea is persued

in later decisions.

14. As regards the nature of this injury, in Kenny's Outline of

Criminal Law, 15th Edn., at p. 333, it is stated that pecuniary

detriment is unnecessary.

In Haycraft v. Creasy (1) LeBlanc, observed (1) (1801) 2

East 92.

"by fraud is meant an intention to deceive; whether it be from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the ill-will towards the other is immaterial."

"To deceive is, I apprehend, to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false, and which the person

practising the deceit knows or believes to be false. To. defraud is to deprive by deceit: it is by deceit to induce a man to act to his injury' More tersely it may be put, that to deceive is by falsehood to induce a state of mind; to defraud is by deceit to induce a course of action."

(2) (1960) 1 All. E. R. 260, 264, 266.

Hilbery, J., speaking for the court, pointed out the

distinction between deceit and defraud and came to the

conclusion that, to defraud" is to deprive by deceit."

Adverting to the argument that the deprivation must be

something of value, i.e. economic loss, the learned judge

observed.

15. This passage for the first time brings out the distinction

between an advantage derived by the person who deceives in

contrast to the loss incurred by the person deceived. Buckley.

J., in Re London & Clobe Finance Corporation Ltd. (1) brings

out the ingredients of fraud thus :

"We have, however, come to the conclusion that this is too narrow at view. While, no doubt, in most cases of an intention to defraud the intention is to cause an economic loss' there is no reason to introduce any such limitation. Provided that the intention is to cause the person deceived to act to his real detriment, it matters not that lie suffers

no economic loss. It is sufficient if the intention is to deprive him of a right or to induce him to do something contrary to what it would have been his duty to do, had lie not been deceived."

16. A Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, in Emperor

v. Abdul had also expressed its view on the meaning of the

word "fraudulently." The learned Judges accepted Stephen's

definition but proceeded to observe as follows:

"It may be noted in this connection that the word

"'injury" as defined in s. 44, Penal Code, is very wide as

denoting "any harm whatever, illegally caused to any

person, in body, mind, reputation or property."

Injury is something other than economic loss that is', deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non economic or non- pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied.

(Emphasis supplied)

17. Having examined the Hon'ble Apex Court's Judgment in

Dr. Vimala's case mentioned above the following would serve

as basis for addressing the offence under Section 420 IPC.

(i) the principal object of every fraudulent person in nearly every case is to derive some advantage though such advantage has a corresponding loss or risk of loss to another.

(ii) first, deceit or an intention to deceive or in some cases mere secrecy ; and secondly, either actual injury or possible injury or to a risk of possible 'injury by means of that deceit or secrecy

(iii) "by fraud is meant an intention to deceive;

whether it be from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or for the ill-will towards the other is immaterial."

(iv) defraud is to deprive by deceit: it is by deceit to induce a man to act to his injury'

(v) fraud includes a benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived.

18. After considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court and the Judgments referred therein it tantamounts

cheating when the deceiver get benefit or advantage, will

always cause loss or detriment to the deceived, even in those

rare cases when there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver

but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the condition is

satisfied.

19. Applying the principle, the petitioner/accused though