LexRAM JAS versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
RAM .. JAS
v.
stATE OF U.P.
September 11, 1970
[V. BHARGAVA·AND I .. D. DUA, •JJ.]
C1:in1{naJ. ~Trial-Indian Penal Code,-1860, s. 419 read '.Vifh s. 109
High Court chariging conviction 1o one -0/ abetting cheating .by persona~
tion when no charge was framed and izlsq mgintaining fine and in default
2 years R.l. awarded by the trial court-Propriety of-lnducing Oath
C(ornrnisliont:r to attest affidavit •Of per.son lvrongly hlt·1uif.ed-If an1ounts
to offence of c:heafing:
The appellant· and.four othhs were charged under s. !70B I.P.C. and
ss. 420, 511, 467, 468 and 471 read with s. 120B •of r:t>:c.
TI1c trial
court convicted the . app.ell"1!,t and . awarded a cucpulatiye sentence of 3
years' risorous imprisonment and~iffi_pose,d a fine .aqd in default two years
rigorous inlprisonmenf. ln appeal tbe High Court was of the view that
the appellant bad· committed an .offel\Ce punishable under s. 419 read with
s. 109 J.P.C., even if the. other' charges, for which 'he had been convicted,
may mlt be .establis\_>ed.
On this view and relying on the power of th6
couft·to 'Convert his convicti6n to ~ppropriate sectior\.s of the Renal Codei
the High Court substituted'for'the conviction recorded by tlie Vial .co11rt -
a convictioa~un~cr s. 419 read \Vith s. 109 l.P.C. and reduced the sen·
tcnce to t\Vo years' rigorous im!.)risonn1ent, while maintijining the fine.
The Court did riot ex:::.mine the c,videnc.:: relating to the offences for
\vhich th.e a;;pellant had been coi'lvicted by the trial court and did' not
record 8.ny findings. on the facts which, according to the prosecut!on:
constituted the com'mission Of those . offences. The court found that the
appeUant h::d ~t lc:ist nhettcd th:e execu'ti.on of on~ false affidavit of G,
\vhich in fc:.ct ,\,.ns· ·signed by so1ne person other than G and that person
\\'as wrongly
i<l~ntified by the appellant before the Oath Commissioner.
and, as Suci1. the appellant \vas held ·g'uilty of abetting the offence of
cheating by pcrson3.tioD: conStit.utittg the offence nunishable Under s. 419
read vYith s. 1-09. l.P.C .. Settip.g aside the conviction,
BE'(.D.: The High Court .Jost sight of the fact that no charge unde'r
s. 419 read with S, 109 I.P.C. was framed against the. appellant in the
trial co1.1rt.. Jn addition the appellant, when questioned. under s. 342 of
th!! Code of Criminal Procedure;· after the prosecution evidepce had· been
recorded, was· no~ ai:;ked to exp.lain the evidence relatin2 to a chafge of
cheating the Oath Commissioner.
Though there was mention of com-
A
c
F
n1isSion of forgery. of affidavits, mere mention of the commission of that
G
offence could not poSllib!y. lead the appellant to infer that he 'Yas liable
to be convicted for abetting the offence
of cheating the Oath Com-
missioner. [180 H-18·] BJ
Further in the instant case the facts found did not constitute the
qffence of cheating at all.
The finding of fact recorded only showed
that the Oath Commissionc'r was induced to atrest the ilffidavit by the
/
deception practised by the appellant in wrongly· identifyin~ ·a person.
HI
The act done by the Oath Commissioner of attesting the ilffidavit could
not, however, possibly cause any dathage or harm to the Oath Com·
missioner in body, mind, reputation or property. The Oath Commissioner
•
A
II
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAM JAS v. U.P. STATE (Bhargava, I.)
179
was ob~iou•!Y n?t induced to deli':er any propctty to anybody by this
wrong 1dent1fication, nor was he mduced to consent that any penon
should retain any property. [182 A-CJ
In approving the sentence of two years' imprisonment in default of
payment of fine, the High Court, made an order which was clearly illegal
and in cont'ravention of s. 65 l.P.C. The High Court made no order with
regard to imprisonment in default; but, by upholding. the fine awarded
by the. trial court, the High Court impliedly affirmed the imprisonment
to be undergone in default of payment of fine.
In affirming this sentence
of imprisonment in default of payment of fine, the High Court failed to
notico that the sentence of imprisonment in default becam~ illegal .when
the conviction was altered to one unde'r s. 419 read with s. 109 I.P.C.
Under that section the maxin1um sentence ·of. imprisonment tha'n can
he awarded is three years. and. consequently,
under s. 65
l.P.C. the
maximum term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine· that could
he prescribed was nine months. beinExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.