VIMLA Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by Special leave raises the question as to the true meaning of the expression 'fraudulently' in S. 464 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The facts either admitted or found by the Courts below may be briefly stated. The appellant is the wife of Siri Chand Kaviraj. On January 20, 1953, she purchased an Austin 10 Horse Power Car with the registration No. DLA - 4796 from Dewan Ram Swarup in the name of her minor daughter Nalini aged about six month at that time. The price for the car was paid by Dr. Vimla. The transfer of the car was notified in the name of Nalini to the Motor Registration Authority. The car at that time was insured against a policy issued by the Bharat Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd., and the policy was due to expire sometime in April, 1953. On a request made by Dewan Ram Swarup, the said policy was transferred in the name of Nalini. In that connection, Dr. Vimla visited the Insurance Company's office and signed the proposal form as Nalini. Subsequently, she also filed two claims on the ground that the car met with accidents. In connection with these claims, she signed the claim forms as Nalini and also the receipts acknowledging the payments of the compensation money as Nalini. On a complaint made by the company alleging fraud on the part of Dr. Vimla and her husband, the police made investigation and prosecuted Dr. Vimla and her husband Siri Chand Kaviraj in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class Delhi. The Magistrate committed Dr. Vimla and her husband to Sessions to take their trial under Ss. 120-B, 419, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge held that no case had been made out against the accused under any one of those sections and on that finding, acquitted both of them. The State preferred an appeal to the High Court of Punjab and the appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench of that Court comprising Falshaw and Chopra JJ. The learned Judges confirmed the acquittal of Siri Chand, but in regard to Dr. Vimla, they confirmed her acquittal under S. 419 of the Indian Penal Code but set aside her acquittal under Ss. 467 and 468 of the Code and instead, convicted her under the said sections and sentenced her to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to the payment of a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. Dr. Vimla has preferred the present appeal by special leave against her conviction and sentence.

(3.) The facts found may be briefly summarised thus:Dr. Vimla purchased a motor car with her own money in the name or her minor daughter had the insurance policy transferred in the name of her minor daughter by signing her name and she also received compensation for the claims made by her in regard to the two accidents to the car. The claims were true claims and she received the money by signing in the claim forms and also in the receipts as Nalini. That is to say, Dr. Vimla in fact and in substance put through her transactions in connection with the said motor car in the name of her minor daughter. Nalini was in fact either a benamidar for Dr. Vimla or her name was used for luck or other sentimental considerations. On the facts found, neither Dr. Vimla got any advantage either pecuniary or otherwise by signing the name of Nalini in any of the said documents nor the Insurance Company incurred any loss, pecuniary or otherwise, by dealing with Dr. Vimla in the name of Nalini. The Insurance Company would not have acted differently even if the car stood in the name of Dr. Vimla and she made the claims and received the amounts from the insurance company in her name. On the said facts, the question that arises in this case is whether Dr. Vimla was guilty of offences under Ss. 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code.