|CITATION||1961 AIR, 1698 1962 SCR (2) 241|
|DATE OF JUDGEMENT||24TH April, 1961|
|COURT||The Supreme Court of India.|
|CASE TYPE||Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Cheating)|
|RESPONDENT||The State of Bihar|
|BENCH||The Hon’ble Justice Raghubar Dayal, the Hon’ble Justice K. Subbarao.|
|REFERRED||Committed cheating under S.420 and 511 of Indian penal code,1860.|
FACTS OF THE CASE:-
Following are facts of the Abhayanand Mishra v. state of Bihar
- This case was initially heard by the High Court, and there the appellant was sentenced for the rigorous imprisonment for two years and also fine of Rs. 500/-, and if there is any default in paying the fine there will be imprisonment for 6 more months.
- The appellant filed the case at the Supreme Court.
- The appellant filled a form to appear in a examination of M.A. in 1954 course as a private student or candidate.
- In this case the appellant was held for cheating the Bihar university as he was the former student of B.A. (alumni) and also a teacher in some specific school.
- But when the enquiry was made against him, the examination coordinators and the university found the allegations which are mentioned above.
- The appellant stated there was an enemy against him, who had plotted against him all these and was innocent and all the information given by him is correct.
- The university also found that he was debarred from giving the examination of B.A.
- The appellant said that the university demanded for the two copies of the photograph and the examination fees were also received by the university. The confirmation card was also dispatched in the mentioned address.
- When the university found out about the fraud then they involved the police and the charges which were put on Abhayanand were under section 420 along with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
- Whether the appellant really wanted to deceive and mislead the university by giving the false information about himself.
- Is there really someone who was the enemy of the appellant?
- There should be charges on the appellant under section 420 and 511 of IPC or not?
The appellant presented that he is not the one who filled the form, it was his enemy who submitted the form and he submitted the examination fees, and he intentionally told Mr. Mazumdar to bring into his notice.
The prosecution said that he is not the alumni of the university and also he is not the teacher at the school and he committed cheating and fraud under section 420 of IPC that “ whoever cheats or commits dishonesty and deceived to deliver the possession of any kind of property which is valuable shall be held liable”.
All the facts are heard and seen by the supreme court. The judgement which was given are as follows:
The fraud came into light in May 1954 and also he did not pass the examination of B.A.
The defence plea by the appellant was of innocence. He said that the signature in the forms was not his and it was done by someone else. The court examined the signatures on the two other documents and they found that instead they are slightly different from each but there are a lot of similarities on the writing and the way of signature. The handwriting experts confirmed that the signature was done by the two different persons.
When the court examined that they found that they are of the same person because the court has the authority to examine the signatures. The court can use its own eyes in this kind of matters. The appellant stated that the fees were also deposited by the enemy. The first application which was submitted by the appellant is alone sufficient to cheat the university, and the registered number and the date of birth which are 3495 of 1947 and 13th august 1930 cannot be known by any outsider because these are something very personal. The appellant’s birthday year was 1929 but in the form it was mentioned as 1930 and he argued that why will I fill in my own birth year wrongly but the court denied this motion saying that it can happen it’s a matter of mistake.
The opposite party sticks to the fact that the appellant visited the office of raja Ramchandra prasad who is the accountant of the university and he identified that it was the appellant who visited there. Since it was difficult for the court to believe such witnesses.
The appellant stated that if he was doing fraud why he will give he actual address he can also gave the false address but he didn’t.
The learned counsel thought that there is definitely a enemy plotting against the appellant.
It was taken in the consideration that the unknown man who told about the appellant to Mr. Mazumdar can also be another young man and not the enemy of the appellant. And the young man brought into the notice of Mr. Mazumdar that if the fraud has been happened the university will be disrepute. It was possible that the unknown man has done this act without knowing the appellant.
The court held that the appellant was rightly held by the additional session judge under section 420 along with section 511 of IPC,1860.
The appeal was failed and dismissed by the court and the before given judgement was being affirmed.
This article is written by Anugrah Kurre of Guru Ghasidas University, intern at Legal Vidhya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.