CRL A/947/1999 of Vs on 29 November 2002

:JUDGEMENT

The second accused in C.C.No.47 of 1996 on the file of thePrincipal Sessions Judge, Chennai is the appellant in the above appeal.

2. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Egmore,Chennai has lodged a charge sheet against [one Jai Sudarshan, who was cited asA.1 in the charge sheet (herein after referred to as A.1 and the presentappellant as A.2 A.1 and A.2 in C.C.No.47 of 1996, alleging that on 09.04.1996at Door No.25, Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai, A.1 Jai Sudarshanintroducing himself as J. Raman and A.2 J. Vasanthi introducing herself asSrimathi induced the witness K.P. Rangarajan to part with a sum ofRs.25,000/- in cash, by falsely representing that they get divorce order tothe daughter of witness Rangarajan, i.e., Mrs. K.R. Padmalatha within 90days and also recover the sridhana properties and maintenance allowance andalso get back the baby of the said Padmalatha and also by falsely promisingthat some amount should be deposited in the Treasury for filing the suit inthat regard; both A.1 and A.2 neither deposited the said amount of Rs.25,000/-paid by the witness Rangarajan nor issued any receipt for the same and theydid not get divorce order and have used the said amount for their personalgain, thereby A.1 and A.2 committed an offence punishable under Sections 419

and 429 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short "IPC"). Similarcharges have been made against both of them in respect of a complaint made byDr. Swaroopa Rani.

3. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 in support of their case. P.W.1 - Rangarajan has retired from Escorts Company. Accordingto him, his daughter Padmalatha has married to one Rajagopalan, as theirmarriage life was not happy, P.W.1 decided to initiate divorce proceedingswith regard to his daughter Padmalatha. On verification from the TelephoneDirectory, he contacted the Consumer Protection Cell, which was situate atT.Nagar, Chennai. He went there along with his son-in-law Raghunathan - P.W.2on 08.04.1996. A.1 was present at that time and introduced himself as Ramanand he told them he was the proprietor of the Consumer Protection Cell. A.2was also present at that time and she introduced herself as an Advocate. A.1told P.W.1 that he would conduct case and get divorce immediately andthereupon P.W.1 told him the particulars of his case. A.1 informed him thathe would complete the case within two weeks and demanded Rs.27,500/- fromP.W.1. P.W.1 paid Rs.25,000/- to A.1. He also told P.W.1 that the saidamount will be refunded after the case is over. P.W.1 after pledging thejewels in Bank of Madura, paid the said amount of Rs.25,00 0/- to A.1 on09.04.1996. Then A.1 and A.2 took the P.W.1 to Family Court. They got thesignature of the daughter of P.W.1 namely, Padmalatha. After some time, P.W.1saw the news published in the Hindu paper regarding the accused that both ofthem had defrauded many persons and P.W.1 went to the Office of A.1 and foundlocked. Thereafter, P.W.1 preferred a complaint to the Commissioner ofPolice. P.W.2 - Raghunathan, employed in Hindu Office and son-in-law of P.W.1has also explained the role played by A.1 and A.2, their statements andassurance made to him regarding settlement of divorce case.

4. The daughter of P.W.1, namely Padmalatha was examined as

4. The daughter of P.W.1, namely Padmalatha was examined as P.W.3. It is her evidence that she went along with her father - P.W.1 and sawthe accused Raman and Srimadhi. They have gone there to file a divorce caseon behalf of P.W.3. She also stated that P.W.1 paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- incash to A.1, while A.1 demanded Rs.27,500/-. Then P.Ws.1 and 3 went to FamilyCourt along with accused A.2 and A.2 got the signature of P.W.3 in a petitionto be filed on her behalf.

5. P.W.4 - Dr. Swaroopa Rani is running a private clinic.

According to her, her husband is a Marine Engineer and her son is studying inDevi Academy School. She knows the Correspondent of the said School and P.W.4paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the Correspondent. In spite of the repeateddemands, they did not repay the same and have also threatened P.W.4. Afterseeing the advertisement in Yellow Pages Telephone Directory regarding theLegal Cell, she went to the Office of A.1 and A.2 in Krishna Street, T.Nagar. There A.2 was introduced the A.1 as her Senior Counsel. P.W.4 toldthem about her case. A.1 and A.2 stated that a sum of Rs.90,000/- is requiredto file a case and Rs.75,000/- has to be deposited in Treasury, which would berefunded to P.W.4 and a sum of Rs.15,000/- is towards fees and there will notbe any receipt for payment of fees. On 06.02.1996, P.W.4 went along with herson Robin and paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- to A.2 at the instance of A.1. Shehad withdrawn the said sum of Rs.90,000/- as a loan from the Fixed Deposit in the name of her husband in Andhra Bank. After some time, they came to knowabout the accused, P.W.4 and her husband went and saw the accused in the monthof April, 1996. In spite of meeting the accused on several occasions, P.W.4did not get any relief. On seeing the news item in Hindu paper that theaccused have cheated many persons, P.W.4's husband gave a complaint to thepolice.

6. P.W.5 - Suryanarayanan, residing in No.9, Kodhandaraman Street, I Lane, Old Washermenpet, Chennai is employed as Engineer in theCorporation. One Ravi and Ravendran were the tenants of P.W.5. P.W.5 wantedto evict them from the said house and on seeing the advertisement, P.W.5 wentto the Office of A.1 and A.2. A.1 who introduced himself as Raman, pointedout A.2 and stated that her name is Lalitha and she is an Advocate. Theypromised that they would evict the tenants within a period of three months anddemanded Rs.15,000/- towards Court deposit and Rs.2,500/- towards Advocate feeand a sum of Rs.15,000/- would be refunded to P.W.5. Immediately, P.W.5 cameto his house, took Rs.3,000/- in cash and went again to A.1's office and gavethe same to A.1. As promised, on the next day, P.W.5 went to the Court andpaid the balance of Rs.14,500/- to A.1. At that time, one Clerk by nameSrinivasan and P.W.5's son Vijayakumar were present. The accused Srinivasanhad only brought A.2 in the High Court premises. At that time, A.2 waswearing Advocate's gown. In spite of his request, A.1 and A.2 refused toissue receipt of the amount paid. On seeing the news item in the Hindu paperto the effect that A.1 and A.2 had cheated many persons, P.W.5 gave acomplaint to the police.

7. P.W.6 - Nagarajan, residing in Door No.2, Adambakkam Road, Valasarawakkam, is employed as Chief Engineer in Bangkok in a ShippingCompany. He is the husband of P.W.4 - Dr. Swaroopa Rani. He also went andmet A.1 and A.2 and paid Rs.90,000/- to A.1 for arresting two persons. The accused also demanded further sum of Rs.30,000/-. P.W.6 after reading thestatement in Hindu to the effect that A.1 and A.2 cheated many persons, hemade a complaint to the police.

8. P.W.7 - K. Baskaran residing in Door No.9, Kothandaraman

Street, Chennai 21 is employed in Tiruvottiyur Bharath State Bank. P.W.5 isthe elder brother of P.W.7. P.W.7 in order to evict his tenants in the housebelonging to him in Anna Nagar, went to the Legal Aid Center in KrishnaStreet, T.Nagar of A.1 and A.2. As in other cases, A.1 and A.2 informed thatthey are the Advocates and informed P.W.7 that a sum of Rs.15,000/- has to bedeposited in Court and Rs.2,500/- has to be paid towards Advocate fee. Thenalso told that the amount of Rs.15,000/- will be refunded to P.W.7. P.W.7paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- to A.1 and promised to pay the balance on the nextday.

9. P.W.8 - Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Elephant Gate Police Station was the Inspector, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai. On29.06.1996, on the basis of Ex.P.1 - complaint given by P.W.1, P.W.8registered a case in Crime No.409 of 1996 under Section 429 IPC and thecomplaint given by P.W.1 has been marked as Ex.P.1. Ex.P.4 is the printed First Information Report sent to the concerned officers. P.W.8 took up theinvestigation and examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and recorded their statements. Aftercompleting the investigation, he filed a charge sheet under Sections 419 and420 read with 34 IPC on 18.12.1996. When A.1 and A.2 were examined underSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with reference to theincriminating evidence against them on the prosecution side, they denied theirevidence. No defence witnesses were examined on the side of the accused.

10. It is seen that A.1 and A.2 have been charged under Sections 41 9 and 429 read with 34 IPC (three counts) for impersonatingthemselves as Advocates and also for dishonestly inducing P.w.1 - Rangarajanto part with a sum of Rs.25,000/- in cash and also inducing P.W.4 Dr.Swaroopa Rani to part with a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- by cheating her andsimilarly by impersonating themselves and dishonestly inducing P.W.5 -Suryanarayanan to part with sum of Rs.17,000/- in cash and thus according toprosecution, A.1 and A.2 cheated P.Ws.1, 4 an 5 respectively.

11. Since A.1 J. Sudarshan is reported dead on 16.04.1999, the charge against him has got abated and the learned Principal Sessions Judgeanalysed the evidence in respect of the charge against A.2. On appreciationof oral and documentary evidence, the learned Principal Sessions Judge foundA.2 guilty for the offence under Section 419 IPC (3 counts) and sentenced tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in each count. A.2 was also foundguilty for the offence under Section 420 read with 34 IPC (3 counts) andsentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year in each count and A.2is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in each count in default ofwhich, A.2 shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months for each count.In the same order, the learned Principal Sessions Judge has directed thatafter the fine amount is collected, a sum of Rs.2,000/- would be paid toP.Ws.1, 4 and 5 each respectively by way of compensation. Questioning thesaid conviction and sentence, A.2 has preferred the above appeal.

12. The appellant / accused appeared in person. Apart from making oral submission, she also filed written arguments. Learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal Side) argued on behalf of the State.

13. The only point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the prosecution has proved the charge framed against A.2 beyond allreasonable doubt and the conviction and sentence made by the learned PrincipalSessions Judge is sustainable?

14. In so far as the first charge against A.2 - appellant herein is concerned, it is the specific case of the prosecution that A.2 alongwith A.1 had impersonated themselves as Advocates and dishonestly inducedRangarajan, P.W.1 to part with a sum of Rs.25,000/-. I have already referredto the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, who substantiate their case. It is the caseof P.Ws.1 to 3 that in order to file a divorce case on behalf of P.W.3, basedon the advertisement, they approached A.1 and A.2 and in the Office, A.1introduced himself as Raman, as the proprietor of the Consumer Protection Celland A.2 introduced herself as Srimadhi and that she is an Advocate. Asrequested by them, after conversation, A.1 and A.2 demanded Rs.25,000/- and P.W.1 paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- in cash to A.1 on 09.04.1996, after pledgingthe jewels in Bank of Madura. It is clear that at the relevant time P.W.1 hadfunds. It is further seen that after payment of the said amount to A.1, A.1and A.2 took P.W.1 to the Family Court and got the signature of P.W.3 andfiled a case in the Family court. Thereafter, according to P.W.1, he came toknow from the news item in Hindu paper regarding the activities of A.1 andA.2. P.Ws.2 and 3 corroborated the evidence of P.W.1, in all materialaspects. It is clear that P.W.1 was dishonestly induced to part with a sum ofRs.25,000/- in cash to A.1. It was also represented that the said sum will bedeposited in Treasury. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 also would go to show thatA.1 and A.2 had impersonated themselves as Advocates and had dishonestlyinduced P.W.1 to part with a sum of Rs.25,000/- on the ground that the same isrequired for the purpose of deposit in the Court for filing divorceproceedings on behalf of P.W.3. P.W.1 is a retired person and he approachedA.1 and A.2 for matrimonial problem of his daughter P.W.3. It is clear thatA.1 and A.2 cheated P.W.1 and A.2 was introduced by A.1 as an Advocate. Thusthe prosecution has proved the first charge.

15. Coming to the second charge as against A.2 is that, A.1

15. Coming to the second charge as against A.2 is that, A.1

and A.2 had impersonated themselves as Advocates to P.W.4 - Dr. Swaroopa Raniand her husband P.W.6 and dishonestly induced P.W.4 and 6 to part with a sumof Rs.1,20,000/- and thereby cheated P.W.4. P.W.6 - Nagarajan is the husbandof P.W.4, Dr. Swaroopa Rani. P.W.4 deposed before the Court below that sheis running a private clinic. P.W.4 had paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to theCorrespondent of Devi Academy School, where her son Robin was studying. Sinceaccording to P.W.4, in spite of her repeated demands the said amount was notrepaid by the said Correspondent. After knowing the advertisement in theYellow Pages of the Telephone Directory, approached A.1 and A.2. A.1 and A.2introduced themselves as Advocates and promised to recover the amount, forwhich they demanded Rs.90,000/- to file a case and out of which Rs.75,0 00/-has to be deposited in Treasury, which would be refunded to P.W.4. P.W.4 wentalong with her son on 06.02.1996 and she paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- in cash toA.2 - appellant herein at the instance of A.1 - Raman. P.W.4 has also statedthat after payment of Rs.90,000/- to A.2, on 06.02.1996, they all went to theCourt. A.1 and A.2 further demanded Rs.30,000/- for arresting two persons andthe said amount was also paid by P.Ws.4 and 6. The evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6,the factum of paying Rs.30,000/- to A.2 at the instance of A.1. Onlythereafter, they came to know the news about A.1 and A.2 cheating severalpersons and made a complaint to the police. It is clear from the evidence ofP.Ws.4 and 6 that both A.1 and A.2 impersonated themselves as Advocates andthey dishonestly induced P.W.4 to part with a sum of Rs.90,000/- andthereafter P.W.4 and her husband P.W.6 to part with a further sum ofRs.30,000/- for initiating legal proceedings for recovery of alleged amount ofRs.5 lakhs from one Jayalakshmi. The learned Principal Sessions Judge hasaccepted the case of P.Ws.4 and 6 and found that A.2 by impersonating herselfas an Advocate, dishonestly induced P.Ws.4 and 6 to part with the said amount.I am in agreement with the said conclusion.

16. Now, I shall consider the third charge. As per theprosecution, the third charge against A.1 and A.2 is that they hadimpersonated themselves as Advocates and dishonestly induced P.W.5 -

Suryanarayanan to part with a sum of Rs.17,500/- and thereby they have cheatedP. W.5. In support of the above charge, P.Ws.5 and 7 were examined. P. W.5Suryanarayanan is employed as Engineer in Chennai Corporation. He wanted toevict two of his tenants from the house owned by him in Anna Nagar. On seeingthe advertisement in the Telephone Directory, namely Legal Aid Center beingrun by A.1 and A.2, P.W.5 went along with his younger brother P.W.7, to thesaid clinic situate at No.25, Krishna Street, T. Nagar, Chennai on17.03.1996. Both P.Ws.5 and 7 explained before the Court below theconversation made between them and A.1 and A.2. They also deposed that afterexplaining their grievance, A.1 and A.2 told that there will not be anydifficulty in evicting the tenants within a period of three months afterfiling a case and demanded Rs.15,000/- towards Court deposit and Rs.2,500/-towards Advocate fee and they also promised that the amount of Rs.15,000/-will be refunded to P.W.5. On the assurance given by A.1 and A.2, P.W.5 andP.W.7 came back to their house and again went to the Office of A.1 and A.2 andP.W.5 paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- to A.1 and told that they would repay thebalance on the next day. On the next day, at the request of one Srinivasan,accused in another case, P.W.5 went to City Civil Court, wherein he noticed ajeep was parked and at that time he also noticed that A.2 was wearing Advocategown. On seeing them, P.W.5 paid the balance amount of Rs.14,500/- to A.2 andA.2 promised P.W.5 that they would file a case immediately and informed P.w.5within two or three days. It is the case of P.W.5 that only on 22.06.1996, hesaw the news item in Hindu paper with photographs of A.1 and A.2 and they havecheated many persons. P.W.5 gave a complaint to the police. The evidence ofP.W.5 and P.W.7 clearly show that the payment of Rs.3,000/- at the firstinstance and Rs.14,500/- in City Civil Court compound, at that time when A.2was wearing advocate's gown. The evidence of P.Ws.5 and 7 as observed by thelearned Principle Sessions Judge is convincing and clearly show that A.1 andA.2 had impersonated themselves as Advocates and they have identified A.1 andA.2 in the Court as if they were practicing Advocates. Their evidence clearlyshow that A.1 and A.2 impersonated themselves as Advocates and dishonestlyinduced P.W.5 to part with a sum of Rs.17,500/-. The other witness - P.W.8,who is the Investigating Officer has explained the examination of P.Ws.5 and 7and his investigation. It is clear from the materials placed on the side ofthe prosecution that it has established the third charge against A.2 forimpersonating herself as an Advocate and dishonestly induced P.W.5 to partwith the said amount and the learned Sessions Judge is perfectly right inarriving a conclusion that the third charge is also proved against A.2 beyondreasonable doubt.

17. It is seen that A.2 was also questioned with reference tothe punishment.

18. It is also relevant to refer the decision of the SupremeCourt in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha VenkataVishwanandha Maharaj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 1999(5) S.C.C. 740. The following observation of their Lordships is relevant.

"8. If somebody offers his prayers to God for healing the sick, there cannotnormally be any element of fraud. But if he represents to another that he hasdivine powers and either directly or indirectly makes that other persons

believe that he has such divine powers, it is inducement referred to inSection 415 IPC. Anybody who responds to such inducement pursuant to it andgives the inducer money or any other article and does not get the desiredresult is a victim of the fraudulent representation. The Court can in such asituation presume that the offence of cheating falling within the ambit ofSection 420 IPC has been committed. It is for the accused, in such asituation, to rebut the presumption. "

19. Considering the proved charges and taking note of thepart played by A.2 along with A.1 by impersonating herself as an Advocate andcheated several persons by collecting money on the pretext of depositingsizable amount in Court, I am of the view she deserves deterrent punishmentand the learned Principal Sessions Judge is right in imposing a sentence tosuffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. There is no validground for interference with the conviction and sentence imposed on theappellant and the appeal deserved to be dismissed. The direction of thelearned Principal Sessions Judge that out of the fine amount, a sum ofRs.2,000/- would be paid to P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 each respectively by way ofcompensation is also acceptable.

Net result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

Index:YesInternet:Yeskh29.11.2002

To1. The Prl. Sessions Judge,Chennai (with records if any)

2. The Inspector of PoliceCentral Crime Branch, Egmore,Chennai.

3. The Public ProsecutorHigh Court, Madras.