# SUPREl\'IE COURT REPORTS KANUMUKKALA KRISHNA MURTHY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1964] 7 S.C.R. 410
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962-07-17
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1,34 of 1962
- **Bench:** K. Sobba Rao, K. C. Das Gupta, Raghubar Dayal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/suprel-ie-court-reports-kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-v-state-of-andhra-pradesh-3138
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

~
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 415, 419-Cheating
-Public Service Commission, false representations to-If deception of Government.
The appellant applied for a post advertised by the Madras
Public Service· Commission, making certain representations in
his application which were found to be false. He was convicted
under s. 419 Indian Penal Code for having cheated the commission. This conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge and
the revision was dismissed by the High Court.
'
Held: (i) Cheating can be committed in either of the two
ways described in s. 415 Indian Penal Code. 'Deceiving a person' is. common in both the ways of cheating.
(ii) The appellant's misrepresentation to the Service Commission continued and persisted till the final stage of the Government itself was deceived by the misrepresentation made in the
application presented to the Service commission.
· The Service Commission is a statutory adviser to the
Government in the matter of appointment to the Service. DecePtion of such an adviser is deception of the Government which
is expected to pay heed to its advice and act accordingly.
State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivasta'IJa [1958J S.C.R. 533,
The Crown v. Gunput, 1868 Pun,i. Rec. Cr!. Case No. 6, P. E.
Billinghurst v. H. P. Blackburn, 27 C.W.N. 821; Legal Remembrancer v. Manmatha Bhusan Chatterjee, & Legal Remembrancer v. Hridoy Narian I.L.R. 51 Cal. 250, Emperor v. Faza!
Din (1906) 4 Cr. L.J. 355, Queen Empress v. Appasami, I.L.R. lZ
~/lad. 151. As/:iwani Kumar Gupta v. Emperor. I.L.R. 1937 (1) Cal.
?l and In re: Hampshire Land Company, [1896] (2) Ch. 743.
referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1,34 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated July 17, 1962 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 298 of 1961.
A. S. R. Chari, G.D. Gupta, S. Balakrishnan, R. K. Garg,
S. C. Agarwa/a, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramamurthi, for the
appellant.
S. G. Patwardhan and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent.
March 23, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Raghubar Dayal, J.
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-The facts leading to this appeal.
by special leave, are these:
The Madras Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Service Commission, by its notification published
. '7 S.C.R.
SUPRE:\IE COURT REPORTS
411
in the Fort St. George Gazette dated August 3, 1948, invited
applications for appointment of Assistant Surgeons in the
Madras Medical Service (Men's Section), from persons who had
rendered temporary service as Assistant Surgeons in that Ser-
·vice at any time between September 3, 1939 and December 31,
1947 and from persons who had rendered War Service and
possessed the qualifications mentioned in paragraph 3 of the
notification. Paragraph 3 of the notification, inter alia, reads:
"Applicants must satisfy the Commission-
(a) that they are registered practitioners within the
meaning of the Madras Medical Registration Act,
1914;
(b) that they possess the L.M.S. degree or the M.B.,
. B.S., degree of a University in the Province or an
equivalent qualification."
The appellant, who was at the time serving as a Civil
Assistant Surgeon in the Madras Medical Service on a temporary basis, applied for the permanent appointment to the posts
notified by the Public Service Commission. In this application
he made the following representations, which have been found
to be false, by the Courts below :
(i) that his name was Kaza Krishnamurthy;
(ii) that his place of birth was Bezwada, Krishna district;
(iii) that his father was K. R. Rao of Bezwada; and
(iv) that he held the degree of M.B.,B.S., TI Class, from
the
Andhra
Medical
College, Vizagapatam,
Andhra University.
On these facts, the appellant was convicted of the offence
under s. 419 I.P.C. for having cheated the Madras Public Service Commission by personating as Kaza Krishnamurthy and
misrepresenting that he had the necessary qualifications for the
post advertised inasmuch as he he

## Text

410
SUPREl\'IE COURT REPORTS
KANUMUKKALA KRISHNA MURTHY
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
[1964}
[K. SOBBA RAO, K. C. DAS GUPTA AND RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.J
~
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), ss. 415, 419-Cheating
-Public Service Commission, false representations to-If deception of Government.
The appellant applied for a post advertised by the Madras
Public Service· Commission, making certain representations in
his application which were found to be false. He was convicted
under s. 419 Indian Penal Code for having cheated the commission. This conviction was confirmed by the Sessions Judge and
the revision was dismissed by the High Court.
'
Held: (i) Cheating can be committed in either of the two
ways described in s. 415 Indian Penal Code. 'Deceiving a person' is. common in both the ways of cheating.
(ii) The appellant's misrepresentation to the Service Commission continued and persisted till the final stage of the Government itself was deceived by the misrepresentation made in the
application presented to the Service commission.
· The Service Commission is a statutory adviser to the
Government in the matter of appointment to the Service. DecePtion of such an adviser is deception of the Government which
is expected to pay heed to its advice and act accordingly.
State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivasta'IJa [1958J S.C.R. 533,
The Crown v. Gunput, 1868 Pun,i. Rec. Cr!. Case No. 6, P. E.
Billinghurst v. H. P. Blackburn, 27 C.W.N. 821; Legal Remembrancer v. Manmatha Bhusan Chatterjee, & Legal Remembrancer v. Hridoy Narian I.L.R. 51 Cal. 250, Emperor v. Faza!
Din (1906) 4 Cr. L.J. 355, Queen Empress v. Appasami, I.L.R. lZ
~/lad. 151. As/:iwani Kumar Gupta v. Emperor. I.L.R. 1937 (1) Cal.
?l and In re: Hampshire Land Company, [1896] (2) Ch. 743.
referred to.
CRIMINAL
APPELLATE
JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1,34 of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment
and order dated July 17, 1962 of the Andhra Pradesh High
Court in Criminal Revision Case No. 298 of 1961.
A. S. R. Chari, G.D. Gupta, S. Balakrishnan, R. K. Garg,
S. C. Agarwa/a, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramamurthi, for the
appellant.
S. G. Patwardhan and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the respondent.
March 23, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Raghubar Dayal, J.
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-The facts leading to this appeal.
by special leave, are these:
The Madras Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Service Commission, by its notification published
. '7 S.C.R.
SUPRE:\IE COURT REPORTS
411
in the Fort St. George Gazette dated August 3, 1948, invited
applications for appointment of Assistant Surgeons in the
Madras Medical Service (Men's Section), from persons who had
rendered temporary service as Assistant Surgeons in that Ser-
·vice at any time between September 3, 1939 and December 31,
1947 and from persons who had rendered War Service and
possessed the qualifications mentioned in paragraph 3 of the
notification. Paragraph 3 of the notification, inter alia, reads:
"Applicants must satisfy the Commission-
(a) that they are registered practitioners within the
meaning of the Madras Medical Registration Act,
1914;
(b) that they possess the L.M.S. degree or the M.B.,
. B.S., degree of a University in the Province or an
equivalent qualification."
The appellant, who was at the time serving as a Civil
Assistant Surgeon in the Madras Medical Service on a temporary basis, applied for the permanent appointment to the posts
notified by the Public Service Commission. In this application
he made the following representations, which have been found
to be false, by the Courts below :
(i) that his name was Kaza Krishnamurthy;
(ii) that his place of birth was Bezwada, Krishna district;
(iii) that his father was K. R. Rao of Bezwada; and
(iv) that he held the degree of M.B.,B.S., TI Class, from
the
Andhra
Medical
College, Vizagapatam,
Andhra University.
On these facts, the appellant was convicted of the offence
under s. 419 I.P.C. for having cheated the Madras Public Service Commission by personating as Kaza Krishnamurthy and
misrepresenting that he had the necessary qualifications for the
post advertised inasmuch as he held the degree of M.B.,B.S.,
and that this deception of the Service Commission was likely
to have caused damage to its reputation.
It may now be mentioned that the appellant was also tr,ied
for offences under s. 420 and s. 465 I.P.C. in connection with
certain acts committed by him in June and October, 1944. The
trial Court acquitted him of the offence under s. 465, but convicted him of the ·other offence. He was, however; acquitted on
appeal, by the Sessions Judge, of the offence under s. 420 I.P.C.
The appellant's conviction under s. 419 I.P.C. was confirmed by the Sessions Judge and the revision against that
1964
Kanu.m11kkala
Krishna Murthy
v.
State of Andhra
Pradtsh
Rayhubar Dayal, J,
1961
KanumUJ:ala
Kriahna Murlhy
412
SUPRE1\1E COURT REPORTS
[1964]
order was dismissed by the High Court. It is against this order
of the High Court that the appellant has preferred this appeal,
after obtaining special leave.
v.
Siok of A71dlwa
It has been contended for the appellant that on the facts
Praduh
estabtished in the case, no offence under s. 419 l.P.C. is made
llagkobar Dayal, J. out against him, as the appellant's efficiency as a surgeon is
not in dispute, he having secured good reports from his superiors during the period of his service and as therefore there
could be no question of the Service Commission suffering
damage in its reputation.
On the contrary, it is urged for the State that the offence
of cheating is made out against the appellant as he deceived
the Service Commission and that such deception was likely to
damage its reputation as he deceived the Service Commission
and obtained from it 'property' viz., the admission card entitling
him to sit at the Competitive Examination for the appointment
of candidates for these posts, and as the appellant also deceived the Government of the State by his false representations.
and dishonestly induced it to appoint him in service and pay
him salary during the period of his service.
Section 415 I.P.C., defines 'cheating' and reads:
"Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so deceived to
deliver any property to any person, or to consent
that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do
or omit to do anything which he would not do or
omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause damage or
harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or
property, is said to 'cheat'.
Explanation-A dishonest concealment of facts is a
deception within the meaning of this section".
Cheating can be committed in either of the two ways described in s. 415 l.P.C. 'Deceiving a person' is common in both
the ways of cheating. A person deceived may be fraudulently
or dishonestly induced to deliver any property or to consent
to the retention of any property by any person. The person
deceived may also be intentionally induced to do or to omit
to do. anything which he would not have done if not deceived
and which act of his caused or was likely to cause damage or
harm in body, mind, reputation or property.
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
7 S.C.R.
SUPREIIIE COURT REPORTS
413
Commission to recommend his appointment to the post of Civil
1964
Assistant Surgeon, 11 Class, and that this act of the Service
Kanumukkala
Commission was likely to damage its reputation as the appelKri•h•• Mu..U.y
!ant did not really possess the degree of M.B.,B.S. Assuming, s
,;A_ dMG
without deciding, that such a deception of the Service Comtat~%.U:h
mission and its recommendation could, in certain circum-
-
stances, cause damage to its reputation, we are of opinion that Raghubar Dayal, 1•
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
10 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 (O 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 re-
•
presenting himself to be a duly qualified candidate, and thus
induced it to select him for the post.
It was argued for the State that the Public Service Commission held a competitive examination and must have therefore issued an admission card to the appellant entitling him to
sit at that ccmpetitive examination and that therefore the appellant having induced by deception the Service Commission
to deliver to him the admission card which is 'property', committed the offence of 'cheating' as defined in the first part of
s. 415 I.P.C. There 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 mis1pprehension arising out of the letter
of the Secretary of the Service Commission to the SurgeonGeneral with the Government of Madras stating thQt he was
enclosing the list containing the names and other particulars of
45 candidates who were successful at the competitive examinatien held by the Commission for the direct recruitment of Civil
Assistant Surgeons. Class JI (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 wh'ch
admission was by admission cards. took place. The judgment
of the Magistrate states:
19"
Kan11muHalG
KrnAna .Murthy
v.
Sum of Andhra
Praduh
Boghbar Dago I, J.
4!4
SUPRE:~IE. COURT REPORTS
[1964]
"The accused was interviewed by the Service Commission as seen from Exhibit P-70, extract of Service
Commission particulars".
The same statement is made in the judgment of the Sessions
Judge who said:
"The accused sent an application Ex. P-72 ...... showing
that he passed M.B.,B.S. degree examination, and
on receiving it and interviewing him, the Public
Service Commission selected him as Civil Assistant
Surgeon, Class I".
The High Court states the same" in its judgment. It said:
"In 1948 he sent an application to the Madras Public
Service Commission for selection as class JI Civil
Assistant Surgeon and was selected ac such 'following an interview by the said body''.
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 appel·
lant entitling him to sit at the examination and, consequently.
cannot hold that the 9ffence of cheating by dishonestly inducing the Service Commission to deliver him property was committed by the appellant.
•
The only other question to determine now is whether the
appellant deceived the Government of Madl'"ds and dishone;;tly
induced it to deliver something in the form of salary to the
appellapt. It is urged that the appointment to the post Jay with
the Government and not with the Service Commission and that
the Government would not have appointed him to the post
in the Medical Service if it had not believed that the appellant
possessed the necessary qualifications which. in his case, would
be a degree of M.B., B.S., and that such a belief was entertained
by the Government on account of the deception practised by
the appellant in misrepresenting in his applicatinon that he held
such a degree. On the other hand, it is contended for the appellant that the delivery of 'property' is to be by the person deceived, in view of the language. of s. 415 l.P.C., and that the person
deceived, if any, was the Service Commission and not the
Government, the application containing the misreprcsentatio:1
having been made to the Service Commission and not to the
Government.
We accept the contention for the respondent. The appointments to the Medical Services are made by Government.
The Service Commission simply selected the candidates and
recommends their names to Government for appointment.
This is clear from letter Exhibit P. 47 from the Secretary to the Service Commission to the Surgeon-General with
the Govern111ent of Madras. The letter refers to the enclosing
7 S.CR.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
415
Kan1unukkafa
J(ri8hna Murthy
v.
Sia/I' of And'hrtJ
Pradesh
of a list containing the names arid 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 commission.
Ragliubar Da.'Juf, J.
This is also clear from the provisions of the Government
of India Act, 1935. Section 241 provided that appointments
in connection with the affairs of a Province will be made by
the Governor of the Province. Sub-s. ii) of s. 266 makes it a
duty of the Provincial Public Service Commission to conduct
examinations for appointments to the ·services of a Province.
Clause (a) of sub-s. (3) provides that the Provincial Public ~~r
vice Commission shall be consulted on all matters relating to
methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts and
cl. (bl provides that it shall be consulted on the principles to be
followed in making appointments to civil services and posts
and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments. The
Public Service Commission is constituted in pursuance of the
provisions of s. 264. It is thus a statutory body and ind~pen
dent of the Government. This aspect ·of a Public Service Commission was emphasized in State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal
Srimstava(') when considering the corresponding provisions of·
art. 320 of the Constitution. This Court said:
"Once. relevant regulations have been made, they are
meant to be followed in letter and in spirit and
it goes without saying that consultation with the
Commission on all disciplinary matters affecting a
public servant has been specifically provided tor.
in order, first, to give an assurance to the Services
that a wholly independent body, not directly concerned with the making of orders adversely affecting public servants, has considered the action
proposed to be taken against a particular public
servant, with an open mind; and. secondly, to
afford the Government unbiassed advice and
opinion on matters vitally affecting the morale o[
public services".
It is in view of these provisions that the Public Service Commission invites applications for appointment to the various
posts under the Government and subsequently makes a selection out of the candidates for appointment to those posts. The
selection may be after holding a written examination or after
interviewing candidates or after doing both. Names of the
cnndidates selected are arranged in order of merit and forwarded to the Government. The Government is expected, as a rule.
I') [1958] S.C.R. 533, 543.
1964
Kanumttkkala
Kriskoo Murthy
v.
Blale of Andkm
P,aiJ.,..h
416
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964)
to make appointments to the posts from out of the list, in the
same order. It has, however, diocretion not to appoint any part
of the persons so selected and securing a place in the order of
merit which would have ordinarily led to his appointment.
Any representation made in an application for appointllagh,,bar Dayal, J. ment is really a representation made to the Government. !he
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 >tage
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 inter•:iew.
The deception was practised for that purpose and therefore
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 ,rnthority 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 representation.
(
We are therefore of opinion that the appellant's misrepresentation to the Service Commission continued and persisted
till the final stage of the Government passing an order of ap·
pointment and that therefore the Government itself was
deceived by the misrepresentation he had made in his applicacation presented to the Service Commission.
The fact that the Service Commission is an independent
statutory authority has no relevant bearing on this question. lt
is a statutory body as it is constituted under he provisions of a
statutes. 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 duu
from the Government. lt brings to bear its own independent
mind to judge the comparative merit~ 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
7 S.C.R. _ SUPREME COURT REPORTS
417
deception of the Government which is expected to pay heed
to its advice and act accordingly.
There have been cases in which servants or agents of an
authority have been deceived while the loss has been surtered
by the authority concerned. In such cases, the person deceil(ing
the servants or agents has been held to have deceived th~
authority concerned, though no direct question was raised
about the deception being made not to the authority but to i;s
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 llmt
they satisfied the various conditions prescribed for candidates
for those appointments. We may refer to some such cases.
In the Crow" v. Gunput(') the accused who had produced
a railway pass with an altered number before lhc ticket co\kctor when travelling by a train, was held to have thereby t11shoncstly 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 t1claet
coilector was considered to be deception of the railway wrapany.
In P. E. Billinghurst v. fl. P. Blackburn(') certain bills
were presented by a company for payment. They were che~ked
by Government officials who were deceived by certain representations made by subordinate officials through whom the
1 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 ihe
Government.
In Legal Remembrancer v. Manmatha Bhusan Clw!ter;te
and Legal Remembrancer v. Hridoy Narain(-') it was held that
if the evidence showed that responsible officers of the East
Indian Railway Company and its Asansol Office were dcce;ved
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 lo 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.
In Emperor v. Fazal Din(') it was held that the deception
practised was likely to cause damage or harm to the person on
!') 1868 Punj. Rec. Col. Case No. 6.
(') 27 C.W.N. 82:.
(') I.L.R. 51 Cal. 250
(') 1906 4 Cr!. L.J. 355.
L
0P(D)ISCI-l4
1964
Kanumukkala
Krisluia Murthy
T.
State of Andhra
Pradeek
Raghubar Dayal,, J.
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
1964
whom it was practised or to the railway authorities whose
Kanumukka'a
agent he was in the matter of appointments.
Kriahna Murthy
y,
In Queen-Empress v. Appasami(') the act of the accused
Stale of Andkra
.
b . .
b
Pradesh
m o tammg, y personation, a hall ticket from the Supcrinten-
-
1 J dent at a University Examination and in signing the name.of
Raghubar Daya, •
th
h
·
·
h Id
· d'
ano er person on t e exammat10n papers was e to m 1cate
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.
Similarly, in Ashwini Kumar Gupta v. Emperor(') the
accused personated another person at a University examination cheating the Registrar. It was held that this not only
damaged the reputation of the Registrar, but also that of the
University. Reference may also be made to the case reported
as In re: Hampshire Land Company(') in which a Society had
lent money to a company on the borrowing of the directors of
thift 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 imernal
management had been carried out by the borrowing compariy.
On the same principle it can be said that the Government of
the State' had a right to assume that the Service Commission
had verified that the candidates selected by it for appoi!1tment
by the Government possessed the necessary qualifications and
in that view the scrutiny by the Service Commission can be said
to be on behalf of the Government.
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. Jn consequence of the appoihtment, 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 l.P.C. The conviction of the
appellant for this offence is therefore correct. We accordingly
dismiss his appeal and order that he will surrender to his bail
and serve out the sentence.
Appeal dismissed.
(') I.L.R. 12 Mad. 151.
'') I.L.R. 1937 (]) Cal. 71.
(') 1896 (2) Ch. 74~
..
•
11