Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. vs Ram Dhani Pande Alias Dharni Dhar Pandey on 24 October, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1987CRILJ933
ORDER O.P. Mehrotra, J.
1. This is a government appeal against an order dt. 29-5-1974 passed by Shri D. N. Shukla llnd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirzapur convicting respondent Ramdhani Pandey alias Dharnidhar Pandey for the offence Under Section 471, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months. However, as he had already been in custody for a longer period than three months, it was ordered that he will not be taken into custody for the purpose of serving out the sentence imposed on him,
2. Besides Section 471, I.P.C, the respondent was also charged and prosecuted for the offences Under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467 and 468 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found that the said charges had not been proved and, accordingly, acquitted him of the said charges. This government appeal is directed against the acquittal of the respondent for the aforesaid offences in respect of which he was acquitted by the lower court.
3. The occurrence relates to the period Sept. and Oct. 1967. There is no dispute that Sri Tambreshwar Prasad (P.W. 17) was the Minister for Irrigation and Power of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and Sri Varmeshwar Pandey (P.W. 19) was the Minister for Local Self Government (L.S.G.) at that time. There is also no dispute that Sri Gopal Krishna Ram Verma (since deceased) was the Deputy Chief Engineer, Obra Project, and Sri R. K. Sanyal (P.W. 7) and Shri V. M. Monglik (P.W. 8) were the Superintending Engineers and Sri B. P. Singh (P.W. 9) and Shri D. N. Mittal were the Executive Engineers at Obra during the relevant period. It is alleged that the real name of the respondent is Ram Dhani Pandey but he posed himself as Dharnidhar Pandey, brother of Sri Varmeshwar Pandey, who was Minister LS.G. at that time. The charges against the respondent related to appointments in the Obra Project which the respondent is alleged to have obtained fraudulently by introducing himself as the younger brother of Varmeshwar Pandey, the then Minister LS.G. Three letters dt. 28-9-67 (Ex.Ka-30), 3-10-67 (Ex.Ka-26) and 13-10-67 (Ex.Ka-29) are alleged to have been forged by the respondent showing that they have been written by Sri Tambreshwar Prasad, the then Minister of Irrigation and Power. These letters were handed over by the respondent to Sri G. K. R. Verma, the Deputy Chief Engineer, Obra Project, V. M. Monglik (P.W. 8), Superintending Engineer of the said project and Sri B. P. Singh (P.W. 9), Executive Engineer of the said project respectively, thereby inducing the said officers to pass orders on the applications of certain candidates appointing them in the said project. The aforesaid letters contained recommendations purporting to have been made by the Minister Irrigation and Power for giving appointment to the candidates. On the basis of the said recommendatory letters, appointment orders on the applications of Jwala Prasad, Amar Nath Singh, Kriparam and Basant were passed by Sri K. G. R. Verma on 4-10-1967. Sri V. M. Monglik, Superintending Engineer, was induced to make appointment of Sughriv Singh, Banarasi Tiwari. Ram Murti Pandey and Parmatma Tiwari. Shri B. P. Singh, Executive Engineer, on the basis of the aforesaid recommendatory letter dt. 19-10-67 (Exs.Ka-28) of the Minister was induced to pass orders on the application of Ram Murti Pandey giving him appointment as Work Supervisor on Work charge Establishment.
4. Sri R. K. Sanyal (P.W. 7) was the Superintending Engineer at Obra at that time. In the first week of Oct. 1967, he was told by Sri G. K. R. Verma, Deputy. Chief Engineer that he had received telephonic call and a letter from Irrigation and Power Minister for making some appointments and that the same may be done. Two applications of Amar Nath Singh and Jwala Prasad (Ex.Ka-9 and Ka-10) were given to him by the respondent under his direction to Sri D. N. Mittal, Executive Engineer (P.W. 10) to pass on the applications to Sri B. P. Singh, Executive Engineer (P.W. 9). On the direction of Shri R. K. Sanyal, Superintending Engineer, Sri D. N. Mittal (P.W. 10) endorsed orders on the applications of Jwala Prasad and Amar Nath Singh Ex.Ka-9 and Ex.Ka-10 to Executive Engineer, Electrical (Div) forwarding the applications with the remark "that the candidate may be appointed as Helper in R. P. Division on the salary of Rs. 100/- p.m. in the Work Charge Establishment. "On the basis of the Minister's letter (Ex.Ka-30) the candidates were given appointments to the post of Helper which was equivalent to the rank of Chaukidar, for which no qualification was required.
5. On 5-10-1967, at about 5 p.m. the respondent met Shri V. M. Monglik (P.W. 8) in his office and introducing himself as Dharnidhar Pandey, brother of Minister Shri Varmeshwar Pandey, gave him the forged letter dt. 3-10-1967 (Ex.Ka-26) in the envelop (Ex.Ka-37) saying that it had been written by Sri Tambreshwar Prasad, Minister Irrigation and Power. Shri Monglik instructed the Executive Engineers to absorb the candidates in the work charge staff if there were vacancies. At 7.30 the same day, the respondent telephoned him that the candidates had come to Obra and they should be given appointments without waiting. He was told that he should contact the Executive Engineers Shri B. P. Singh and Shri S. P. Garg. However, as four persons named in the letter dt. 3-10-1967 (Ex.Ka-26) did not appear before Shri B. P. Singh, he did not take any action on that letter. Subsequently on 17-1(M%7, the respondent approached Sri B. P. Singh (P.W. 9) along with letter dt. 13-10-1967 (Ex.Ka-29) purporting to have been written by the same Minister for Irrigation and Power along with candidate Ram Murti Pandey whereupon Shri B. P. Singh passed an order on the application of Ram Murti (Ex.Ka-31) approving his appointment as work charge supervisor. On the basis of that order formal order of appointment was issued on 19-10-67 (Ex.Ka-28).
6. When Shri V. M. Monglik (P.W. 8) went to Lucknow in connection with some official work, he took letters Ex.Ka-26 and Ka-29 along with envelop Ex.Ka-27 with him and handed them over to the Executive Engineer attached to the Minister at his residence. On 25-10-1967 the respondent again contacted Sri Monglik on telephone and thanked him for giving appointments and further requested him for some more appointments. Shri Monglik requested the respondent to disclose from where he was speaking whereupon the respondent got confused and gave the name of Shri R. C. Singh and immediately disconnected the line. Sri Monglik then telephoned to the Deputy Chief Engineer and the respondent was available on the line there. Sri Monglik told the respondent that he had spoken to him on telephone just now whereupon the respondent denied and feeling sorry stated that he had gone to bath room and it might be that his friend had talked to him in his name. At that time, the Deputy Chief Engineer was not present at his residence. Shortly afterwards, he again contacted the Deputy Chief Engineer at his residence and enquired from him that one Dharnidhar Pandey had telephoned from his residence and whether he was known to him. Thereupon the Deputy Chief Engineer told Sri Monglik that Sri Dharnidhar Pandey had come with the letter of Minister Irrigation and Power for giving appointments to certain candidates and that is how he knew him. Sri Monglik then went to the residence of Deputy Chief Engineer Sri G. K. R. Verma who called the Vigilance Officer and told him about the features of respondent and directed to arrest him.
7. On 26-10-1967 at 9. 30 or 10 a.m. Shri Chauhari Singh Section 9(P.W. 1) who was posted as S. I. Security Obra Thermal Power House, referred to as the Vigilance Officer, arrested the respondent from Roadways Bus Stand. The respondent first gave his name as Ramdhani Pandey but when the Vigilance Officer told that his name was Dharnidhar Pandey, he became nervous. The Vigilance Officer produced the respondent before Sri G. K. R. Verma, who called Shri V. M. Monglik also in his office. The respondent was very nervous but on enquiry, he insisted that he was brother of Varmeshwar Pandey, . Minister L.S.G. It was then confirmed that the respondent was the same person who had met Shri G. K. R. Verma, Shri V. M. Monglik and Shri B. P. Singh with the aforesaid letters purporting to have been written by Shri Tambreshwar Prasad, Minister Irrigation and Power. The matter was then brought to the notice of Minister Irrigation and Power on 31-10-1967 and when it was found that it was confirmed that the said letters had not been written by the said Minister but were forged and that the respondent was not the brother of Sri Varmeshwar Pandey, Sri G. K. R. Verma submitted a written report dt. 1-11-1967 (Ex.Ka-32).
8. On the same day viz, 1-11-1967 Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch directed investigation of this case whereupon Sri Mansab Ullah, Dy. S. P., Crime Branch (P.W. 4) deputed Inspector S. U. Zubedi (P.W. 8) to investigate the case. The respondent was arrested by Station Officer H. N. Singh (P.W. 18) on 24-11-1967 and was kept Bapurdah at Police Station Chetganj, Varanasi. On the next day viz. 25-11-1967, Dy. S. P. Mansab Ullah (P.W. 4) took specimen hand writing (Ex.Ka-11 to Ka-24) of the respondent at Police Station Chetganj where he was kept Bapurdah. On the same day the respondent was taken from Hawalat of Police Station Chetganj by constable Sarvajeet Ram (P.W. 5) and was lodged in District Jail, Varanasi. The test identification of the respondent was conducted by Sri N. B. Singh, Magistrate First Class (P.W. 16) in District Jail Varanasi on 27-12-1967 in which he was correctly identified by almost all the witnesses including S.I. Chauhari Singh, Security Officer (P.W. 1), Lalta Prasad Singh vP.W. 2), Shri D. M. Mittal, Executive Engineer (P.W. 10), Shri R P. Singh Executive Engineer (P.W. 9), Shri V. M. Manglik, Superintending Engineer (P.W. 8) and Shri G. K. R. Verma, Deputy Chief Engineer (not examined as he had died in the meanwhile).
9. Besides the specimen handwriting and signatures ol"lhe respondent, specimen handwriting and signatures o! certain other persons were also taken and certain other writings and signatures alleged to have been made by the respondent were collected and were sent to Scientific Section C.I.D. U.P. Lucknow where they were examined, by Shri Shivram Singh, Hand Writing Expert (P. W. 13). After examining the documents, he came to the conclusion that the person who had written the specimen writing and signatures had also written the disputed writings on Exs.Ka-9, Ka-10 (applications of Jwala Prasad and Amar Nath Singh) Ex.Ka-35 application of Basant as well as the body writing and signatures on the disputed letters Exts. Ka-26, Ka-29 and Ka-30) purporting to have been written by Shri Tambreshwar Prasad, the then Minister for Irrigation and Power as also the address on the envelop Ex.Ka-27. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the respondent.
10. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses. P.W. 1S. I. Chauhari Singh was the Security Officer at the Obra Thermal Power House at the relevant time, who had arrested the respondent from near the Roadways Bus Stand on 26-10-1967 at about 10 a.m. on the basis of his features as disclosed to him by Sri G. K. R. Verma, Deputy Chief Engineer and produced him before Sri Verma, who interrogated him and thereafter permitted him to go. He further stated that on previous occasions also, the respondent used to come to him for obtaining permits to enter the office saying that he was Dharnidhar Pandey and was brother of Sri Varmeshwar Pandey, Minister L.S.G.D. P.W. 2 Lalta Prasad Singh clerk proved certain permits prepared by him and certain other clerks of his office in favour of the respondent and stated that the respondent had given out that he was younger brother of Sri Varmeshwar Pandey Minister. P.W. 3 Jwala Prasad was one of the candidates for whom the respondent had fraudulently obtained appointment on the basis of the forged letters in dispute. He too supported the prosecution case and stated that the respondent had himself prepared the body writing of applications Exs.Ka-9 and Ka-10 on his behalf and on behalf of Amar Nath Singh and had obtained employment for them. P.W. 4 Dy. S. P. Mansab Ullah had taken specimen writings of the respondent. P.W. 5 constable Sarvajeet Ram had proved that the respondent remained Bapurdah at Police Station Chetganj Varanasi and had been taken by him to District Jail, Varanasi.
11. P.W. 7 Shri R. K. Sanyal, P.W. 8 Shri V. M. Manglik, P.W. 9 Shri B. P. Singh and P.W. 10 Shri D. N. Mittal are engineers posted at Obra Thermal Power House and who have fully supported the prosecution case as detailed above. All of them had also identified the respondent in jail as the person who had approached them saying that he was Dharnidhar Pandey and was brother of Shri Varmeshwar Pandey Minister L.S.G.D. and who had also produced three disputed letters Exs. Ka-26, Ka-29 and Ka-30 purporting to have been written by Shri Tambreshwar Prasad, Minister for Irrigation and Power and had also produced applications of the candidates whereupon orders for appointment in their favour had been passed.
12. P.W. 11 S. I. H. N. Singh had arrested the respondent on 24-11-1967. He also proved that the respondent had committed similar crime of cheating on an earlier occasion by impersonating himself as Consolidation Officer whereupon he was prosecuted Under Sections 420/170 I.P.C. and was convicted by Shri Mathur, Magistrate First Class, Varanasi on 16-9-1966. The judgment of that case is on the record as Ex.Ka-85 and it shows that the respondent was sentenced to undergo R, I, for one year and ten months respectively for the offences Under Sections 170/420 I.P.C. The appellate judgment dt. 13-3-1967 (Ex.Ka-86) shows that the convictions were maintained but the sentences for the two offences were reduced to four months and three months respectively.
13. P.W. 13 Sri Shivram Singh is the Hand Writing Expert. P.W. 16 N. B. Singh is the Magistrate who conducted the identification parade. P.W. 17 Shri Tambreshwar Prasad was the Minister for Irrigation and Power and he stated that the disputed letters Exs. Ka-26, Ka-29 and Ka-30 and envelop Ex.Ka-27 were neither written nor signed by him. He further stated that the respondent was not known to him. P.W. 19 Shri Varmeshwar Pandey, the then Minister L.S.G.D. stated that the respondent was not his brother. Lastly P.W. 18 Inspector S. U. Zubedi of Crime Branch C.I.D. was the Investigating Officer of this case.
14. The accused pleaded not guilty. He denied that he ever gave out his name as Dharnidhar Pandey or represented to any one that he was brother of Sri Varmeshwar Pandey, Minister. He admitted that he had gone to Obra and met officers there several times but he did not remember their names. He also did not remember when and for whom he arranged the jobs. About previous conviction, he admitted that he was convicted Under Sections 170 and 420 I.P.C. and had also filed an appeal in the High Court but did not know its result and in the meanwhile he had served out the full sentence. He alleged false implication by the police with a view to character assassination. He did not adduce any defence evidence.
15. It is noteworthy that there was nothing in the cross-examination of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution to show that the witnesses were not reliable or that they were not speaking the truth. On the other hand, all the prosecution witnesses were entirely independent and reliable and they had no ill will or cause for grievance to implicate the respondent in this case. Most of the prosecution witnesses were not even cross-examined. There was no reason why they should not be believed. The learned Sessions Judge believed them and he was perfectly justified in doing so.
16. It has not been disputed before us that the respondent is really Ramdhani Pandey and he is not Dharnidhar Pandey nor he is brother of Shri Varmeshwar Pandey, the then Minister LS.G.D. It has also been established beyond reasonable doubt by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that the respondent, pretending to be the brother of Shri Varmeshwar Pandey Minister, approached various Engineers mentioned above with forged letters (Exs.Ka-26, Ka-29 and Ka-30) purporting to have been written by Shri Tambreshwar Prasad, Minister for Irrigation and Power, and thereby induced those engineers to give employment to certain candidates. One of those candidates, viz., Jwala Prasad has been examined as P.W. 3 and he supported the prosecution case and stated that the respondent got him employed in the Obra Thermal Power House on the post of Helper on which post he was still working. P.W. 7 Shri R. K. Sanyal, Superintending Engineer also stated that letters of appointment of Jwala Prasad and Amar Nath Singh were issued by Sri B. K. Bansal, Executive Engineer, who was working under him and that those persons were still working and even after it was brought to their notice that these appointments had been obtained fraudulently on the basis of forged letters, yet they have not been removed on account of certain legal difficulties.
17. The evidence of the prosecution in this respect has been believed by the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Counsel for the respondent has not challenged that finding and did not make any attempt to show that it was not the respondent who had approached the above mentioned engineers along with the disputed letters for getting employment for certain candidates. As a matter of fact, the learned Sessions Judge held that the charge against the accused respondent Under Section 471 I.P.C. had been proved inasmuch as there was the uncontroverted evidence of the Minister concerned that the disputed letters had not been written by him. The said letters were, therefore, made by forgery. He further held that the accused had used those letters as genuine and hence the charge Under Section 471 I.P.C. was proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused respondent was convicted for the said offence and he did not prefer any appeal against that conviction.
18. The learned Sessions Judge, however, held that the other charges Under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467 and 468 I.P.C. had not been established against the accused respondent and, accordingly, acquitted him of the said charges; hence this government appeal.
19. The main question for consideration before us, therefore, is as to whether any of the said offences Under Sections 419, 420, 466, 467 and 468 I.P.C. of which the respondent had been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge had been established against him. Before taking up each specific charge, it may be pointed out at the outset that the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned at page 10 of his original judgment that "the evidence of Sri Shiv Ram Singh, Hand Writing Expert (P.W. 3) shows that three disputed letters under reference (Exs.Ka-1, Ka-3 and K.a-4) were not sent to him for comparison and opinion and as such it cannot be said that these letters were prepared by the accused." He, therefore, held that it could not be said that the accused had committed forgery by preparing these letters and, consequently, the charge Under Section 468 I.P.C. could not be said to have been proved. We do not find any such statement having been made by the handwriting expert (P.W. 3). We are surprised how this incorrect thing has been mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge. He appears to have fallen into error because he omitted to note the fact that the three disputed letters alleged to have been forged by the accused were originally marked Exts. 1,3 and 5 in the committing court but those very letters were marked Exts. Ka-26, Ka-29 and Ka-30 in the Sessions Court. The Handwriting Expert clearly stated that the disputed letters Exts. Ka-26, Ka-29 and Ka-30 along with other disputed writings were sent to him and were also examined by him. He also gave definite opinion that these disputed letters were written by the same person who wrote the specimen writings (viz. the accused). He also gave cogent reasons in support of his opinion. There was no reason to doubt the correctness of his opinion. It was thus fully established that the three disputed letters purporting to have been written by Sri Tambreshwar Prasad Minister for Irrigation and Power had actually been forged by the respondent and that he also used these forged letters as genuine by handing them over to the engineers mentioned above representing that he was the brother of Shri Varmeshwar Pandey, Minister. Thus all the facts as alleged by the prosecution had been fully established.
20. We may now take up the various charges and consider whether they have been proved against the respondent. As regards the charge Under Section 419 I.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge has observed as follows:
So far as the charge Under Section 419 I.P.C. was concerned, it does not refer to cheating by forgery..................The accused personated himself as the brother of the Minister (of L.S.G.D.). That Minister had nothing to do with Engineering Department to which the appointing officers belonged. By introducing himself as the brother of LS.G.D. Minister, the accused could not have cheated the said officers. Those officers regarded the forged letters of the Irrigation and Power Minister as virtual orders. As such the cheating was made possible not by personation but by forgery of the said letters. It was, therefore, immaterial that while cheating by forgery, the accused resorted to false personation and this I say because false personation had nothing to do with the cheating. The accused may be punished for cheating by forgery but it cannot be said that he had cheated by" personation as contemplated by Section 419 I.P.C.
In our opinion, the cheating in the present case was made possible by impersonation as well by forgery of the aforesaid three letters. There can be no doubt that this was a clear case of cheating inasmuch as the respondent had induced the engineers concerned to give appointments to certain candidates by representing to them that he was the brother of Sri Varmeshwar Pandey Minister LS.G.D. and also by producing before them forged letters purporting to have been written by Sri Tambreshwar Prasad, Minister Irrigation and Power, in which also the respondent was described as brother of Shri Varmeshwar Pandey. In any case, the respondent intentionally induced the persons so deceived viz. those engineers to do something which they would not have done if they were not so deceived. The statements of these engineers further show that they would not have given appointments to those candidates if the accused respondent had not misrepresented and had not brought the disputed letters purporting to have been written by Minister, Irrigation and Power. They further stated that the act of the respondent caused mental damage as well as damage to their reputation. Thus all the ingredients of Section 419 I.P.C. were present in this case. The respondent was, therefore, guilty of the offence Under Section 419 I.P.C. and the finding of the learned Sessions Judge to the contrary was wrong and is hereby set aside. It is surprising that the learned Sessions Judge did not even find the respondent guilty of the offence of simple cheating punishable Under Section 417 I.P.C, although it appears that his finding was that they had committed the offence of cheating but the said cheating was not by impersonation but was by forgery. If that was so, he should have at least convicted the accused respondent of the offence of cheating punishable Under Section 417 I.P.C. However, we are of the opinion that the evidence on record clearly makes out a case of cheating by impersonation defined Under Section 416 I.P.C. and punishable Under Section 419 I.P.C
21. As regards charge Under Section 420 1.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge observed that the officers deceived did not deliver any property and hence the offence of cheating by delivery of property was not committed. He further mentioned that there was no evidence that formal letter of appointment which constituted a valuable security had been delivered to any one. In our opinion, these observations and findings of the learned Sessions Judge were not correct. There was definite evidence on the record that by cheating the officers, the respondent dishonestly induced them to make or prepare appointment letters and deliver the same and on that basis appointments were actually given to Ram Murti and certain other candidates who were still in service. The letter of appointment of Ram Murti dt. 19-10-1967 is on the record as Ext. Ka. 28 and the same was proved by Sri V. M. Mangalik (P.W. 8). The statement of Sri R. K. Sanyal (P.W. 7) shows that the candidates who were given appointments on the basis of the forged letters produced by the respondent were still in service and they could not be removed on account of certain difficulties. P.W. 8 V. M. Mangalik and P.W. 9 B. P. Singh had also stated that the act of the respondent caused mental damage to them. There can be no doubt that the-letter of appointment was "property" and also "valuable security" within the meaning of those terms appearing in Section 420 I.P.C. Consequently, the charge Under Section 420 I.P.C. is also made out against respondent and the learned Sessions Judge had fallen into an error in recording a finding to the contrary.
22. The learned Sessions Judge may be correct in holding that the charges Under Sections 466 and 467 I.P.C. were not made out, inasmuch as the three disputed letters did not purport to be made by Minister for Irrigation and Power in his official capacity nor they could be said to be valuable security but were only recommendatory letters purporting to have been written by the Minister to the officers of the department under his charge. However, the charge Under Section 468 I.P.C. (forgery for purposes of cheating) was fully established. We have already mentioned above that the learned Sessions Judge did not carefully peruse the statement of Sri Shivram Singh, Handwriting Expert, (P.W. 13) and made an erroneous statement that the three letters in dispute were not sent to him for comparison and opinion. On that basis, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to hold that it had not been proved as to who committed the forgery. The fact remains that the three disputed letters were actually sent to the handwriting expert and he has given a definite opinion that these disputed letters (Exts.Ka-26, K.a-29 and Ka-30) were written by the same person who wrote the specimen writing (viz the accused). It was thus established that these letters had been forged by the respondent. The facts and circumstances of the case further show that he forged these letters with the intention that they shall be used for the purposes of cheating and that he actually used them for this purpose. Consequently, the respondent was clearly guilty of the offence Under Section 468 I.P.C.
23. It would thus appear that besides the offence Under Section 471 I.P.C. of which the respondent was held guilty and convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, he was further guilty of the offences Under Sections 419, 420 and 468 I.P.C. The evidence further shows that this was not the first occasion when the respondent committed an offence of this nature. The statement of P,W. 11 S.I. H. N. Singh shows that the respondent had committed similar crime of cheating on earlier occasion by impersonating himself as Consolidation Officer, whereupon he was prosecuted Under Sections 420 and 170 I.P.C. and was convicted by Magistrate First Class, Varanasi on 16-9-1966. He was sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year and ten months respectively for the two offences but in appeal the sentences were reduced to four months and three months respectively. The respondent admitted that he was convicted Under Sections 170 and 420, l.P.C. and further stated that he had undergone the sentence. Thus this was the second conviction of the respondent for a similar offence. It appears that as the sentence awarded to the respondent in the earlier case was not severe and was reduced by the appellate court, the same did not have sufficient deterrent effect on him, so that he was persuaded to commit a similar and more serious offence. It is correct that more than 12 years have passed since the delivery of the judgment by the Sessions Judge yet keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and especially the fact that this was the second offence of this nature committed by the respondent, we are of the opinion that the respondent should be sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year Under Section 419 l.P.C, for two years Under Section 420 l.P.C. and for two years Under Section 468 l.P.C.
24. In the result, this government appeal succeeds to this extent that the acquittal of respondent Ram Dhani Pandey alias Dharnidhar Pandey for the offences Under Sections 419, 420 and 468 l.P.C. is set aside and he is convicted for these offences. He is sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year for the offence Under Section 419 l.P.C, for two years Under Section 420 l.P.C. and for two years for the offence Under Section 468 l.P.C. All the sentences shall run concurrently and they shall also run concurrently with the sentence already awarded to him by the Sessions Judge Under Section 471 l.P.C. The respondent is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail to serve out the sentence awarded to him in accordance with law.