Skip to content


Sarwansingh Gajjan Singh Jat Vs. the State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Revision No. 88 of 1957
Judge
Reported inAIR1958MP230
ActsIndian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 170 and 419
AppellantSarwansingh Gajjan Singh Jat
RespondentThe State
Appellant AdvocateParty in person
Respondent AdvocateMungre, Govt. Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
- - on an investigation, it was found out that the accused as well as the alleged constable were pretenders and that they did not belong to the punjab police force at all......the wanted persons. but it seems that after the additional superintendent police had phoned up the dabra police, he suspected that the person who had approached him was a pretender. the accused was accompanied by another person named tejsingh. the accused told the additional superintendent police that the person accompanying him was a constable named surendrapal singh. on an investigation, it was found out that the accused as well as the alleged constable were pretenders and that they did not belong to the punjab police force at all.3. i have gone through the evidence and i see no reason to disbelieve the statements of mr. vishwanath singh additional superintendent police, and of nathuram sub-inspector. dabra, (p. w. 10) and there is no doubt that the accused pretended to hold the office.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Abdul Hakim Khan, J.

1. The accused, Sarwan Singh son of Gajjan Singh resident of Beas Find (Punjab) was convicted by the Additional City Magistrate, Lashkar, under Sections 170 and 419 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year, and a year and a half respectively. The accused filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge Gwalior but it was rejected. Now he has filed this revision.

2. The prosecution story in short is that on 1-1-56, the accused went to the house of Mr. Vishwanath Singh, Additional Supserintendent Police, Lashbar and told him that hi name was Ratansingh and that he was a Sub-Inspector of police, Ambala, and that he had come to Lashkar to effect the arrest of some persons who were living in Dabra and who were wanted in a Criminal case pending against them in Punjab. He further asked the Additional Superintendent of Police to phone up the Officer-in-charge of Datara Police Station and to make enquiries as to whether the wanted persons are there or not.

The Additional Superintendent Police, Gwalior phoned up the Station Officer Dabra to trace the wanted persons. But it seems that after the Additional Superintendent Police had phoned up the Dabra Police, he suspected that the person who had approached him was a pretender. The accused was accompanied by another person named Tejsingh. The accused told the Additional Superintendent Police that the person accompanying him was a Constable named Surendrapal Singh. On an investigation, it was found out that the accused as well as the alleged constable were pretenders and that they did not belong to the Punjab police force at all.

3. I have gone through the evidence and I see no reason to disbelieve the statements of Mr. Vishwanath Singh Additional Superintendent Police, and of Nathuram Sub-Inspector. Dabra, (P. W. 10) and there is no doubt that the accused pretended to hold the office Of the Sub-Inspector Police Punjab and under the colour of such office, he approached the Additional Superintendent Police and made him phone to Dabra Police Station with a view to get some Punjabis living in Dabra arrested.

4. I, however, find that the accused has been convicted under Section 170 for personating a Public Servant and he has also been convicted under Section 419 I. P. C. for cheating by personation. It seems that 'both the offences overlap each other. Cheating by personation (Section 419 I. P. C.) is an offence of a general character under which a person may pretend to be any oneother than what he really is. But cheating by pretending to be a public servant (Section 170 I. P. C.) is a specific offence where one pretends to be a public servant. It has all ingredients of cheating by personation, under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. But when the personation is that of a public servant and the pretender does some act, then the offence becomes one under Section 170 I. P. C. In this view of the matter and having regard to the facts of this case I think the accused should have been punished under Section 170 I. P. C'. only.

5. For reasons stated above, I allow the revision partly, and while maintaining the conviction, and sentence of the accused under Section 170 I. P. C. I quash the conviction and sentence under Section 419 I. P. C.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //