T.N.R.TIRUMALPAD, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by Promode Ranjan Choudhury, the ex -nazir -cum -cashier of the District Court, Tripura in the third sessions case against him in the series of sessions cases, which are being tried by the Sessions Judge in respect of defalcations which were detected by the Resident Auditor in the course of his inspection of the District Court accounts in April, 1959. In this sessions case No. 24 of 1960 there were three charges against the appellant, all of them under Section 420 I.P.C. The first charge is in respect of Ext. P -3 a payment order dated 24 -3 -58 in which the appellant is said to have fraudulently inflated the figure from Rs. 300/ -into Rs. 2300/ - and thereby deceived the Treasury Officer to pass payment for Rs. 2300/ - and to have converted the excess amount of Rs. 2000/ - to his own use. The second charge is in respect of Ext. P -15 dated 11 -3 -58, in which the inflation was by Rs. 900/ - i.e. from Rs. 16/ - into Rs. 916/ -, whereas the third charge is in respect of Ext. P -22 dated 94 -58 wherein the figure was inflated from Rs. 23/ - into Rs. 123/ -. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty under Section 420 I.P.C. and convicted him in respect of all the three charges and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of 4 years under the first charge, 2 years in respect of the second charge and 6 months in respect of the third charge, all the three sentences to run concurrently.
(2.) THE first contention raised by the appellant was one of law namely, that even granting that the inflation's of the figures of the amounts in Exts. P -3 P -15 and P -22 were proved, the charges framed against him did not show that he has cheated anybody and further that the evidence let in by the prosecution and particularly the evidence of P. W. 5, the Treasury Accountant and P. W. 11, the Treasury Officer, did not show that the Treasury Officer as stated in the charge, had really been deceived and that therefore the charges under Section 420 I.P.C. will not stand against the appellant. It was further argued that even if the Treasury Officer had been deceived and induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not have done or omitted to do if he was not so deceived, the prosecution still had to prove that the said act or omission caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the Treasury officer in mind, body, reputation or property. It was pointed out that no such damage or harm to the Treasury officer was spoken to by P. W. 5 or P. W. 11 and it was not shown in what way the Treasury officer was affected by his passing the order for payment. The Treasury officer had only to see if it was a repayment order drawn up in accordance with the rules and if it was so, he can pass it for payment and he cannot be held responsible and no damage or harm can come to him for what he did. Thus there was no offence of cheating, whatever other offence the appellant may have committed. In that connection, the two decisions Muhammad Bakhsh v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Lah 460 and Seetharama Rao v. Govt. of Mysore, AIR 1954 Mys 9 were relied on.
(3.) THE three charges framed against the appellant in the Sessions Court were similar and only the documents and the amounts involved varied. The three charges were to the effect that the appellant as nazir -cum -cashier of the District Court fraudulently inflated the amounts in the Treasury copies of the three payment orders by making interpolations therein after they were signed by the District Judge and thereby dishonestly induced the Treasury officer to pass orders for payment in respect of the inflated amounts and in consequence dishonestly induced the State Bank or India to deliver the money to the appellant through the peons concerned and that the appellant converted the excess amounts to his own use and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. It has to be accepted that the wording of the charges as framed is not quite happy. The most important ingredient in a charge under Section 420 is cheating and the charges do not say that there was cheating or who was cheated. The second ingredient in a charge under section 420 is that by the cheating (sic.) there must be dis honest inducement of 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. The charges, as they stand, do not say that any person was deceived or that any deceived person was dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person. They no doubt state that the State Bank of India was induced to deliver money to the appellant through the peons concerned. But they do not make it clear that the State Bank was deceived. Nor do the charges say that the Treasury officer was deceived or was dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person, instead, the charges say that the Treasury Officer was dishonestly induced to pass orders for payment in respect of the inflated amounts. Perhaps it was meant that the payment orders were valuable security and that the Treasury officer was dishonestly induced to make a valuable security by passing the order for payment on the payment orders signed by the District Judge. It would have been better if the learned Sessions Judge had used clearer language in framing the charges.;