Case: Kanumukkala Krishnamurthy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

stage of the Government passing an order of appointment and that therefore the Government itself was deceived by the misrepresentation he had made in his application presented to the Service Commission. 17. The fact that the Service Commission is an independent statutory authority has no relevant bearing on this question. It is a statutory body as it is constituted under the provisions of a statute. It is independent of the Government in the sense that in its selection of candidates or in its tendering advice to the Government it does not take any hint or instructions or clue from the Government. It brings to bear its own independent mind to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and their suitability to the posts they apply for. Its function is to advise the Government on the suitability of the candidates. It is therefore a statutory adviser to Government in the matter of appointment to the Services. Deception of such an adviser is deception of the Government which is expected to pay heed to its advise and act accordingly. 18. There have been cases in which servants or agents of an authority have been deceived while the loss has been suffered by the authority concerned. In such cases, the person deceiving the servants or agents has been held to have deceived the authority concerned, though no direct question was raised about the deception being made not to the authority but to its servant. The principle of the cases, to our mind, fully applies to the case of candidates deceiving the Public Service Commission and thereby deceiving the Government in believing that they satisfied the various conditions prescribed for candidates for those appointments. We may refer to some such cases. 19. In The Crown v. Gunpat, 7 Pun Re 1868 Cr. the accused who had produced a railway pass with an altered number before the ticket collector when travelling by a train, was held to have thereby dishonestly induced the railway company to do or omit to do what they otherwise would not have done or omitted, by the production of the altered pass. The deception of the ticket collector was considered to be deception of the railway company. 20. In P.E. Billinghurst v. H.P. Blackburn, 27 Cal WN 821: (AIR 1924 Cal 18) certain bills were presented by a company for payment. They were checked by Government officials who were deceived by certain representations made by subordinate officials through whom the bills had passed, and consequently payments were made in satisfaction of the demands under the bills. The persons concerned in causing the deception were convicted of cheating the Government. 21. In Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs v. Manmatha Bhusan Chatterjee, ILR 51 Cal 250 : (AIR 1924 Cal 495 ) it was held that if the evidence showed that responsible officers of the East Indian Railway Company and its Asansol Office were deceived and induced either to allot wagons to a certain colliery which would not otherwise have been allotted or to make out wagon chalans for the colliery which would not otherwise have been made it was sufficient to support the allegations in the charges that the railway company was, by reason of deceipt, induced to act in a certain way. The deception of the responsible officers was thus taken to be the deception of the railway company, the possible damage to whose reputation was remote. 22. In Emperor v. Fazal Din, 4 Cri LJ 355 (Lah) it was held that the deception practised was likely to cause damage or harm to the person on whom it was practised or to the railway authorities whose agent he was in the matter of appointments. 23. In Queen-Empress v. Appasami, ILR 12 Mad 151 the act of the accused in obtaining, by personation, a half ticket from the Superintendent at a University Examination and in signing the name of another person on the examination papers was held to indicate an intention on his part to lead the University authorities to believe that the examination papers were answered by the other person. This again is on the principle that the deception of the Superintendent who was working for the University was a deception of the University itself. 24. Similarly, in Ashwini Kumar Gupta v. Emperor, ILR (1937) 1 Cal 71: (AIR 1936 Cal 403) the accused personated another person at a University examination by cheating the Registrar. It was held that this not only damaged the reputation of the Registrar, but also that of the University. 25. Reference may also be made to the case reported as In re: Hampshire Land Company, 1896-2 Ch 743 in which a Society had lent money to a company on the borrowing of the directors of that company who were not competent to borrow, the resolution conferring on them the power of borrowing being invalid for certain reasons. It was held that the Society had a right to assume, in a case like that, that all the essentials of internal management had been carried out by the borrowing company. On the same principle it can be said that, the Government of the State had a right to assume that the Service Commissions had verified that the candidates selected by it for appointment by the Government possessed the necessary qualification and in that view the scrutiny by the Service Commission can be said to be on behalf of the Government. 26. The Government appointed the appellant to a post in its Medical Service on being induced by deception that he was fully qualified for the appointment. In consequence of the appointment, Government had to pay him the salaries which fell due. It is clear therefore that the appellant, by deceiving the Government, dishonestly induced it to deliver property to him and thus committed the offence of cheating under S. 415 I.P.C. as he pretended to be Kaza Krishnamurthy which he was not. The offence really committed by him was cheating by personation, punishable under S. 419 I.P.C.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]9. The Courts below, as already stated, found that the appellant cheated the Service Commission by deceiving that he held the degree of M. B. B. S., and by intentionally inducing the Commission to recommend his appointment to the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, IInd Class, and that this act of the Service Commission was likely to damage its reputation as the appellant did not really possess the degree of M. B. B. S. Assuming without deciding, that such a deception of the Service Commission and its recommendation could, in certain circumstances, cause damage to its reputation, we are of opinion that in the circumstances of this case there was no likelihood of the causing of such damage to its reputation. There is nothing on the record to show that the Service Commission could have ordinarily detected the deception or that the appointment of the applicant to the post in the Medical Service was the appointment of a person who proved to be inefficient. On the contrary, the evidence on the record shows that, for about l0 years between his appointment and the institution of this case, he served efficiently and obtained good reports from the Departmental Superiors. His incompetency for the post was due to his having not obtained the minimum academic qualifications prescribed for the candidates for these posts.We are therefore of opinion that the appellant has not committed the offence of cheating as defined in the latter part of S. 415 I.P.C., even though he had deceived the Service Commission by representing himself to be a duly qualified candidate, and thus induced it to select him for the postThere is no force in this contention for the simple reason that there is nothing on the record to indicate that an admission card was issued entitling the appellant to sit at the competitive examination. In fact, no examination as such took place, and the contention for the respondent appears to have been made under a misapprehension arising out of the letter of the Secretary of the Service Commission to the Surgeon General with the Government of Madras stating that he was enclosing the list containing the names and other particulars of 45 candidates who were successful at the competitive examination held by the commission for the direct recruitment of Civil Assistant Surgeons, Class II (Men) in the Madras Medical Service. It is however clear from the record that the candidates were simply interviewed by the Commission. There is nothing on the record to show that any written examination to which admission was by admission cards took place11. In these circumstances, we cannot hold merely on the basis of suggestions, that any competitive written examination was held and that any admission card was issued to the appellant entitling him to sit at the examination and, consequently, cannot hold that the offence of cheating by dishonestly inducing the service Commission to deliver him property was committed by the appellant13. We accept the contention for the respondent. The appointments to the Medical Services are made by Government. The Service Commission simply selects the candidates and recommends their names to Government for appointment. This is clear from letter Exhibit7 from the Secretary to the Service Commission to thel with the Government of Madras. The letter refers to the enclosing of a list containing the names and other particulars of the candidates who were successful at the examination, their names being arranged in order of merit. It refers to the relaxing of a certain rule in view of the paucity of candidates and states that they may be appointed, if necessary, pending receipt of the certificate of physical fitness and a further communication from the Commission15. Any representation made in an application for appointment is really a representation made to the Government , the appointing authority and not only to the Public Service Commission to which the application is presented and which has to deal with that application in the first instance, up to the stage of selection. The object of the applicant was to secure an appointment and not merely to deceive the Public Service Commission and sit at the examination or to appear at the interview. The deception was practiced for that purpose and thereof there seems to be no good reason for holding that the deception came to an end once the Service Commission was deceived and had taken action on it as a result of the deception. A false representation in an application to the Service Commission continues and persists to be so till the application is considered by the final authority responsible for making the appointments and must therefore be deemed to be made to that final authority as well. In the instant case, when the recommendation of the Service Commission was sent to the Government, the qualifications of the recommended candidates, including the fact that the appellant had passed the M.B.B.S. examination were mentioned. The Government therefore believed that the appellant possessed the degree of M.B.B.S., that as the Service Commission had scrutinized the application in that regard and had satisfied itself that the appellant possessed that degree. The consequence of that is that the Government were led to believe that fact, which thus became a false representation16. We are therefore of opinion that the appellants misrepresentation to the Service Commission continued and persisted till the final stage of the Government passing an order of appointment and that therefore the Government itself was deceived by the misrepresentation he had made in his application presented to the Service Commission17. The fact that the Service Commission is an independent statutory authority has no relevant bearing on this question. It is a statutory body as it is constituted under the provisions of a statute. It is independent of the Government in the sense that in its selection of candidates or in its tendering advice to the Government it does not take any hint or instructions or clue from the Government. It brings to bear its own independent mind to judge the comparative merits of the candidates and their suitability to the posts they apply for. Its function is to advise the Government on the suitability of the candidates. It is therefore a statutory adviser to Government in the matter of appointment to the Services. Deception of such an adviser is deception of the Government which is expected to pay heed to its advise and act accordingly18. There have been cases in which servants or agents of an authority have been deceived while the loss has been suffered by the authority concerned. In such cases, the person deceiving the servants or agents has been held to have deceived the authority concerned, though no direct question was raised about the deception being made not to the authority but to its servant. The principle of the cases, to our mind, fully applies to the case of candidates deceiving the Public Service Commission and thereby deceiving the Government in believing that they satisfied the various conditions prescribed for candidates for those appointmentsOn the same principle it can be said that, the Government of the State had a right to assume that the Service Commissions had verified that the candidates selected by it for appointment by the Government possessed the necessary qualification and in that view the scrutiny by the Service Commission can be said to be on behalf of the Government26. The Government appointed the appellant to a post in its Medical Service on being induced by deception that he was fully qualified for the appointment. In consequence of the appointment, Government had to pay him the salaries which fell due. It is clear therefore that the appellant, by deceiving the Government, dishonestly induced it to deliver property to him and thus committed the offence of cheating under S. 415 I.P.C. as he pretended to be Kaza Krishnamurthy which he was not. The offence really committed by him was cheating by personation, punishable under S. 419 I.P.C.