{"id":20345,"date":"1964-03-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-03-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964"},"modified":"2017-06-29T07:16:03","modified_gmt":"2017-06-29T01:46:03","slug":"kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964","title":{"rendered":"Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 333, \t\t 1964 SCR (7) 410<\/div>\n
Author: R Dayal<\/div>\n
Bench: Dayal, Raghubar<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKANUMUKKALA KRISHNA MURTHY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n23\/03\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nBENCH:\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nSUBBARAO, K.\nGUPTA, K.C. DAS\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR  333\t\t  1964 SCR  (7) 410\n\n\nACT:\nIndian\tPenal  Code,  1860  (Act  45  of  1860),  ss.\t415,\n419--Cheating-Public\t  Service     Commission,      false\nrepresentations to-If deception of Government.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant applied for a post advertised by\t the  Madras\nPublic Service Commission, making certain representations in\nhis  application  which\t were found to\tbe  false.   He\t was\nconvicted under s. 419 Indian Penal Code for having  cheated\nthe  commission.   This\t conviction  was  confirmed  by\t the\nSessions  Judge and the revision was dismissed by  the\tHigh\nCourt.\nHeld:\t  (i) Cheating can be committed in either of the two\nways  described in s. 415 Indian Penal Code.   'Deceiving  a\nperson' is common in both the ways of cheating.\n(ii) The  appellant's misrepresentation to the Service\tCom-\nmission continued and persisted till the final stage of\t the\nGovernment itself was deceived by the misrepresentation made\nin the application presented to the Service Commission.\nThe  Service  Commission  is  a\t statutory  adviser  to\t the\nGovernment  in\tthe matter of appointment  to  the  Service.\nDeception of such an adviser is deception of the  Government\nwhich  is  expected  to\t pay heed  to  its  advice  and\t act\naccordingly.\nState of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava<\/a> [1958] S.C.R. 533,\nThe Crown v. Gunput, 1868 Punj.\t Rec.  Crl.  Case No. 6,  P.\nE.  Billinqhurst  v. H. P. Blackburn, 27 C.W.N.\t 821,  Legal\nRemembrancer  v. Manmatha Bhusan Chatterjee, & Legal  Remem-\nbrancer\t v.  Hridoy Narian I.L.R. 51 Cal.  250,\t Emperor  v.\nFazal Din (1906) 4 Cr.\tL.J. 355, Queen Empress v. Appasami,\nI.L.R. Mad. 151.  Ashwani Kumar Gupta v. Empreror.   I.L..R.\n1937  (1) Cal. 71 and In re: Hampshire Land Company,  [1896]\n(2) Ch. 743. referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 134  of
\n1962.\tAppeal by special leave from the judgment and  order
\ndated  July  17, 1962 of the Andhra Pradesh  High  Court  in
\nCriminal Revision Case No. 298 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
A.   S. R. Chari, G. D. Gupta, S. Balakrishnan, R. K.  Garg,
\nS.   C.\t Agarwala, D. P. Singh and M. K. Ramamurthi, for the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
S.   G.\t Patwardhan and B. R. G. K. Achar, for\tthe  respon-
\ndent.\n<\/p>\n
March 23, 1964.\t The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nJ.  RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.-The facts leading to this appeal,  by
\nspecial leave, are these:\n<\/p>\n
The  Madras Public Service Commission, hereinafter  referred
\nto as the Service Commission, by its notification published
\n411<\/span>
\nin the Fort St. George Gazette dated August 3, 1948, invited
\napplications  for appointment of Assistant Surgeons  in\t the
\nMadras Medical Service (Men’s Section), from persons who had
\nrendered  temporary  service as Assistant Surgeons  in\tthat
\nService\t at any time between September 3, 1939 and  December
\n31,  1947 and from persons who had rendered War Service\t and
\npossessed the qualifications mentioned in paragraph 3 of the
\nnotification.  Paragraph 3 of the notification, inter  alia,
\nreads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Applicants must satisfy the Commission–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   that  they are registered  practitioners
\n\t      within  the  meaning  of\tthe  Madras  Medical
\n\t      Registration Act, 1914;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   that  they possess the L.M.S. degree  or
\n\t      the M.B., B.S., degree of a University in\t the
\n\t      Province or an equivalent qualification.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  appellant,\t who  was at the time  serving\tas  a  Civil
\nAssistant Surgeon in the Madras Medical Service on a  tempo-
\nrary  basis,  applied for the permanent appointment  to\t the
\nposts  -notified by the Public Service Commission.  In\tthis
\napplication  ‘he made the following  representations,  which
\nhave been found ;to be false, by the Courts below:\n<\/p>\n
(i)  that his name was Kaza Krishnamurthy;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) that his place of birth was Bezwada, Krishna district;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  that his father was K. R. Rao of Bezwada; and\n<\/p>\n
(iv) that he held the degree of M.B.B.S., II Class, from the
\nAndhra Medical College, Vizagapatam, Andhra University.
\nOn  these facts, the appellant was convicted of the  offence
\nunder  s.  419 I.P.C. for having cheated the  Madras  Public
\nService Commission by personating as Kaza Krishnamurthy\t and
\nmisrepresenting that he had the necessary qualifications for
\nthe  post  advertised  inasmuch as he  held  the  degree  of
\nM.B.B.S., and that this deception of the Service  Commission
\nwas likely to have caused damage to its reputation.
\nIt  may now be mentioned that the appellant was\t also  tried
\nfor  offences under s. 420 and s. 465 I.P.C.  in  connection
\nwith  certain  acts committed by him in\t June  and  October,
\n1944.  The trial Court acquitted him of the offence under s.
\n465,  but  convicted  him of the  other\t offence.   He\twas,
\nhowever, acquitted on appeal, by the Sessions Judge, of\t the
\noffence under s. 420 I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant’s conviction under s. 419 I.P.C. was confirmed
\nby the Sessions Judge and the revision against that
\n412<\/span>
\norder  was dismissed by the High Court. it is  against\tthis
\norder  of  the High Court that the appellant  has  preferred
\nthis appeal after obtaining special leave.
\nIt  has been contended for the appellant that on the  facts,
\nestablished  in the case, no offence under s. 419 I.P.C.  is
\nmade  out  against him, as the appellant’s efficiency  as  a
\nsurgeon\t is not in dispute, he having secured  good  reports
\nfrom  his superiors during the period of his service and  as
\ntherefore  there  could\t be  no\t question  of  the   Service
\nCommission suffering damage in its reputation.
\nOn the contrary, it is urged for the State that the  offence
\nof cheating is made out against the appellant as he deceived
\nthe Service Commission and that such deception was likely to
\ndamage its reputation as he deceived the Service  Commission
\nand  obtained  from it ‘property’ viz., the  admission\tcard
\nentitling him to sit at the Competitive Examination for\t the
\nappointment  of\t candidates  for these\tposts,\tand  as\t the
\nappellant  also deceived the Government of the State by\t his
\nfalse representations, and dishonestly induced it to appoint
\nhim  in service and pay him salary during the period of\t his
\nservice.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Section  415  I.P.C., defines  ‘cheating’\t and
\n\t      reads:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whoever,\t   by\t deceiving    any    person,
\n\t      fraudulently ordishonestly induces the  person
\n\t      so  deceived  to deliver any property  to\t any
\n\t      person,  or to consent that any  person  shall
\n\t      retain any property, or intentionally  induces
\n\t      the  person  so deceived to do or omit  to  do
\n\t      anything\twhich he would not do or omit if  he
\n\t      were  not\t so  deceived,\tand  which  act\t  or
\n\t      omission\tcauses or is likely to cause  damage
\n\t      or   harm\t to  that  person  in  body,   mind,
\n\t      reputation or property, is said to ‘cheat’.
\n\t      Explanation-A  dishonest concealment of  facts
\n\t      is  a  deception within the  meaning  of\tthis
\n\t      section”.\n<\/p>\n
Cheating  can  be committed in either of the two  ways\tdes-
\ncribed\tin s. 415 I.P.C. ‘Deceiving a person’ is  common  in
\nboth,  the  ways  of cheating.\tA  person  deceived  may  be
\nfraudulently or dishonestly induced to deliver any  property
\nor  to\tconsent\t to the retention of  any  property  by\t any
\nperson.\t  The  person  deceived may  also  be  intentionally
\ninduced\t to do or to omit to do anything which he would\t not
\nhave done if not deceived and which act of his caused or was
\nlikely to cause damage or harm in body, mind, reputation  or
\nproperty.\n<\/p>\n
The  Courts below, as already stated, found that the  appel-
\nlant  cheated  the Service Commission by deceiving  that  he
\nheld  the degree of M.B.B.S. and by  intentionally  inducing
\nthe:\n<\/p>\n
413<\/span><\/p>\n
Commission to recommend his appointment to the post of Civil
\nAssistant  Surgeon,  11\t Class, and that  this\tact  of\t the
\nService\t Commission was likely to damage its  reputation  as
\nthe appellant did not really possess the degree of M.B.,B.S.
\nAssuming,  without  deciding, that such a deception  of\t the
\nService Commission and its recommendation could, in  certain
\ncircumstances,\tcause  damage to its reputation, we  are  of
\nopinion that in the circumstances of this case there was  no
\nlikelihood of the causing of such damage to its\t reputation.
\nThere  is  nothing on the record to show  that\tthe  Service
\nCommission  could have ordinarily detected the deception  or
\nthat  the  appointment of the applicant to the post  in\t the
\nMedical\t Service was the appointment of a person who  proved
\nto  be\tinefficient.  On the contrary, the evidence  on\t the
\nrecord shows that for about 10 years between his appointment
\nand the institution of this case, he served efficiently\t and
\nobtained good reports from the Departmental Superiors.\t His
\nincompetency for the post was due to his having not obtained
\nthe  minimum  academic\tqualifications\tprescribed  for\t the
\ncandidates  for\t these posts.  We are therefore\t of  opinion
\nthat  the  appellant  has  not\tcommitted  the\toffence\t  of
\n‘cheating’  as defined in the latter part of s. 415  I.P.C.,
\neven  though he had deceived the Service Commission  by\t re-
\npresenting  himself  to be a duly qualified  candidate,\t and
\nthus induced it to select him for the post.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t argued\t for  the  State  that\tthe  Public  Service
\nCommission  held  a competitive examination  and  must\thave
\ntherefore   issued  an\tadmission  card\t to  the   appellant
\nentitling  him\tto sit at that competitive  examination\t and
\nthat therefore the appellant having induced by deception the
\nService\t Commission  to deliver to him\tthe  admission\tcard
\nwhich is ‘property’, committed the offence of ‘cheating’  as
\ndefined in the first part of s. 415 I.P.C. There is no force
\nin  this  contention  for the simple reason  that  there  is
\nnothing on the record to indicate that an admission card was
\nissued\tentitling  the appellant to sit at  the\t competitive
\nexamination.   In fact, no examination as such\ttook  place,
\nand  the contention for the respondent appears to have\tbeen
\nmade  under a misapprehension arising out of the  letter  of
\nthe  Secretary\tof the Service Commission  to  the  Surgeon-
\nGeneral\t with the Government of Madras stating that  he\t was
\nenclosing   the\t  list\tcontaining  the\t names\t and   other
\nparticulars  of\t 45 candidates who were\t successful  at\t the
\ncompetitive  examination  held\tby the\tCommission  for\t the
\ndirect\trecruitment  of Civil Assistant Surgeons,  Class  II
\n(Men)  in the Madras Medical Service.  It is  however  clear
\nfrom the record that the candidates were simply\t interviewed
\nby  the Commission.  There is nothing on the record to\tshow
\nthat  any  written  examination to which  admission  was  by
\nadmission cards, took place.  The judgment of the Magistrate
\nstates:\n<\/p>\n
414<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “The  accused was interviewed by\tthe  Service
\n\t      Commission as seen from Exhibit P-70,  extract
\n\t      of Service Commission particulars”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  same statement is made in the judgment of the  Sessions
\nJudge who said:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The accused sent an application Ex. P-72…..<\/p>\n
\t      showing\tthat  he  passed  M.B.,B.S.   degree
\n\t      examination,   and   on\treceiving   it\t and
\n\t      interviewing    him,   the   Public    Service
\n\t      Commission  selected  him as  Civil  Assistant
\n\t      Surgeon, Class 1″.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The High Court states the same in its judgment.\t It said:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In 1948 he sent an application to the  Madras
\n\t      public  Service  Commission for  selection  as
\n\t      class  11\t Civil\tAssistant  Surgeon  and\t was
\n\t      selected as such following an interview by the
\n\t      said body”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  these circumstances, we cannot hold merely on the  basis
\nof suggestions, that any competitive written examination was
\nheld and that any admission card was issued to the appellant
\nentitling  him to sit at the examination and,  consequently,
\ncannot\thold  that the offence of  cheating  by\t dishonestly
\ninducing the Service Commission to deliver him property\t was
\ncommitted by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The  only  other question to determine now  is\twhether\t the
\nappellant deceived the Government of Madras and\t dishonestly
\ninduced it to deliver something in the form of salary to the
\nappellant.  It is urged that the appointment to the post lay
\nwith the Government and not with the Service Commission\t and
\nthat  ‘the  Government would not have appointed him  to\t the
\npost in the Medical Service if it had not believed that\t the
\nappellant  possessed the necessary qualifications which,  in
\nhis  case, would be a degree of M.B., B.S., and that such  a
\nbelief\twas entertained by the Government on account of\t the
\ndeception  practised by the appellant in misrepresenting  in
\nhis  application that he held such a degree.  On  the  other
\nhand, it is contended for the appellant that the delivery of
\n‘property’  is to be by the person deceived, in view of\t the
\nlanguage of s. 415 I.P.C., and that the person deceived,  if
\nany, was the Service Commission and not the Government,\t the
\napplication  containing\t the misrepresentation\thaving\tbeen
\nmade to the Service Commission and not to the Government.
\nWe  accept  the\t contention for\t the  respondent.   The\t ap-
\npointments  to the Medical Services are made by\t Government.
\nThe  Service Commission simply selected the  candidates\t and
\nrecommends their names to Government for appointment.\tThis
\nis clear from letter Exhibit P. 47 from the Secretary to the
\nService\t  Commission   to  the\tSurgeon-General\t  with\t the
\nGovernment of Madras.  The letter refers to the enclosing
\n415<\/span>
\nof a list containing the names and other particulars of\t the
\ncandidates  who\t were successful at the\t examination,  their
\nnames  being arranged in order of merit.  It refers  to\t the
\nrelaxing  of  a\t certain  rule in view\tof  the\t paucity  of
\ncandidates  and\t states\t that  they  may  be  appointed,  if
\nnecessary,  pending receipt of the certificate\tof  physical
\nfitness and a further communication from the commission.
\nThis is also clear from the provisions of the Government  of
\nIndia Act, 1935.  Section 241 provided that appointments  in
\nconnection  with the affairs of a Province will be  made  by
\nthe Governor of the Province.  Sub-s. (1) of s. 266 makes it
\na  duty\t of  the Provincial  Public  Service  Commission  to
\nconduct\t examinations for appointments to the Services of  a
\nProvince.   Clause  (a)\t of sub-s.  (3)\t provides  that\t the
\nProvincial  Public Service Commission shall be consulted  on
\nall  matters  relating to methods of  recruitment  to  civil
\nservices  and for civil posts and cl. (b) provides  that  it
\nshall  be  consulted  on the principles to  be\tfollowed  in
\nmaking\tappointments to civil services and posts and on\t the
\nsuitability of candidates for such appointments.  The Public
\nService\t Commission  is\t constituted  in  pursuance  of\t the
\nprovisions  of\ts.  264.  It is thus a\tstatutory  body\t and
\nindependent  of\t the Government.  This aspect  of  a  Public
\nService\t Commission  was  emphasized in\t State\tof  U.P.  v.
\nManbodhan    Lal   Srivastava<\/a>(1)   when\t  considering\t the
\ncorresponding  provisions of art. 320 of  the  Constitution.
\nThis Court said:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Once,  relevant regulations have\t been  made,
\n\t      they are meant to be followed in letter and in
\n\t      spirit   and  it\tgoes  without  saying\tthat
\n\t      consultation   with  the\tCommission  on\t all
\n\t      disciplinary   matters  affecting\t  a   public
\n\t      servant has been specifically provided for  in
\n\t      order,  first,  to give an  assurance  to\t the
\n\t      Services\tthat a wholly independent body,\t not
\n\t      directly\tconcerned with the making of  orders
\n\t      adversely\t  affecting  public  servants,\t has
\n\t      considered  the  action proposed to  be  taken
\n\t      against  a particular public servant, with  an
\n\t      open  mind;  and,\t secondly,  to\tafford\t the
\n\t      Government  unbiassed  advice and\t opinion  on
\n\t      matters vitally affecting the morale of public
\n\t      services”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is in view of these provisions that the  Public  Service
\nCommission  invites  applications  for\tappointment  to\t the
\nvarious posts under the Government and subsequently makes  a
\nselection  out\tof the candidates for appointment  to  those
\nposts.\t The  selection\t may  be  after\t holding  a  written
\nexamination Dr after interviewing candidates or after  doing
\nboth.\tNames  oil the candidates selected are\tarranged  in
\norder  of  merit  and  forwarded  to  the  Government.\t The
\nGovernment is expected, as a rule,
\n(1)  [1958] S.C.R. 533.. 543.\n<\/p>\n
116<\/span><\/p>\n
to  make appointments to the posts from out of the list,  in
\nthe same order.\t It has, however, discretion not to  appoint
\nany part of the persons so selected and securing a place  in
\nthe  order of merit which would have ordinarily led  to\t his
\nappointment.\n<\/p>\n
Any  representation made in an application for\tappointments
\nis  really  a  representation made to  the  Government,\t the
\nappointing  authority,\tand not only to the  Public  Service
\nCommission  to which the application is presented and  which
\nhas to deal with that application in the first instance.  up
\nto the stage ,of selection.  The object of the applicant was
\nto  secure  an\tappointment and not merely  to\tdeceive\t the
\nPublic\tService Commission and sit at the examination or  to
\nappear\tat the interview.  The deception was  practised\t for
\nthat purpose and therefore there seems to be no good  reason
\nfor  holding  that  the deception came to an  end  once\t the
\nService\t Commission was deceived and had taken action on  it
\nas a result of the deception.  A false representation in  an
\napplication to the Service Commission continues and persists
\nto  be\tso till the application is considered by  the  final
\nauthority  responsible for making the appointments and\tmust
\ntherefore  be deemed to be made to that final  authority  as
\nwell.\tIn the instant case, when the recommendation of\t the
\nService\t  Commission  was  sent\t to  the   Government,\t the
\nqualifications of the recommended candidates, including\t the
\nfact that the appellant had passed the M.B.,B.S. examination
\nwere mentioned.\t The Government therefore believed that\t the
\nappellant  possessed  the degree of M.B.,B.S., that  as\t the
\nService\t Commission had scrutinized the application in\tthat
\nregard and had satisfied itself that the appellant possessed
\nthat degree.  The consequence of that is that the Government
\nwere  led  to believe that fact, which thus became  a  false
\nrepresentation.\n<\/p>\n
We  are\t therefore of opinion that  the\t appellant’s  misre-
\npresentation   to  the\tService\t Commission  continued\t and
\npersisted till the final stage of the Government passing  an
\norder  of  appointment\tand that  therefore  the  Government
\nitself was deceived by the misrepresentation he had made  in
\nhis application presented to the Service Commission.
\nThe  fact  that\t the Service Commission\t is  an\t independent
\nstatutory   authority  has  no\trelevant  bearing  on\tthis
\nquestion.  It is a statutory body as it is constituted under
\nhe  provisions\tOf -a statutes.\t It is\tindependent  of\t the
\nGovernment in the sense that in its selection of  candidates
\nor  in\tits tendering advice to the Government it  does\t not
\ntake  any hint or instructions or due from  the\t Government.
\nIt  brings  to bear its own independent mind  to  judge\t the
\ncomparative  merits of the candidates and their\t suitability
\nto the posts they apply for.  Its function is to advise\t the
\nGovernment  on\tthe suitability of the\tcandidates.   It  is
\ntherefore a statutory adviser to Government in the matter of
\nappointment  to the Services.  Deception of such an  adviser
\nis
\n\t\t\t    417<\/span>
\ndeception of the Government which is expected to pay heed to
\nits advice and act accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
There  have  been cases in which servants or  agents  of  an
\nauthority  have\t been  deceived\t while\tthe  loss  has\tbeen
\nsuffered  by  the authority concerned.\tIn such\t cases,\t the
\nperson\tdeceiving  the servants or agents has been  held  to
\nhave  deceived\tthe authority concerned,  though  no  direct
\nquestion  was raised about the deception being made  not  to
\nthe  authority\tbut  to is servant.  The  principle  of\t the
\ncases, to our mind, fully applies to the case of  candidates
\ndeceiving   the\t Public\t Service  Commission   and   thereby
\ndeceiving  the Government in believing that  they  satisfied
\nthe  various conditions prescribed for candidates for  those
\nappointments.  We may refer to some such cases.
\nIn  the\t Crown v. Gunput(1) the accused who had\t produced  a
\nrailway\t pass  with  an altered\t number\t before\t the  ticket
\ncollector  when\t traveling  by a train,\t was  held  to\thave
\nthereby\t dishonestly  induced the railway company to  do  or
\nomit  to  do  what they otherwise would\t not  have  done  or
\nomitted\t by  the  production  of  the  altered\tpass.\t The
\ndeception  of  the  ticket collector was  considered  to  be
\ndeception of the railway company.\n<\/p>\n
In  P. E. Billinghurst v. H. P. Blackburn(2)  certain  bills
\nwere presented by a company for payment.  They were  checked
\nby Government officials who were deceived by certain  repre-
\nsentations  made by subordinate officials through  whom\t the
\nbills  had  passed, and consequently payments were  made  in
\nsatisfaction  of the demands under the bills.\tThe  persons
\nconcerned  in  causing\tthe  deception\twere  convicted\t  of
\ncheating the Government.\n<\/p>\n
In  Legal  Remembrancer v. Manmatha  Bhusan  Chatterjee\t and
\nLegal  Remembrancer v. Hridoy Narain(3) it was held that  if
\nthe  evidence showed that responsible officers of  the\tEast
\nIndian Railway Company and its Asansol Office were  deceived
\nand  induced  either to allot wagons to a  certain  colliery
\nwhich would not otherwise have been allotted or to make\t out
\nwagon  chalans\tfor the colliery which would  not  otherwise
\nhave been made, it was sufficient to support the allegations
\nin  the charges that the railway company was, by  reason  of
\ndeceipt, induced to act in a certain way.  The deception  of
\nthe responsible officers was thus taken to be the  deception
\nof  the\t railway  company,  the\t possible  damage  to  whose
\nreputation was remote.\n<\/p>\n
In  Emperor v. Fazal Din(4) it was held that  the  deception
\npractised  was likely to cause damage or harm to the  person
\non
\n(1)1868 Punj. Rec. Col. Case No. 6.  (2) 27 C.W.N. 821.
\n(3)I.L.R. 51 Cal. 250\t (4)1906 4 Crl. L.J. 355.
\nL\/P(D)ISCI-14
\n418<\/span>
\nwhom  it was practised or to the railway  authorities  whose
\nagent he was in the matter of appointments.
\nIn  Queen-Empress v. Appasaimi(1) the act of the accused  in
\nobtaining,   by\t  personation,\ta  hall\t ticket\t  from\t the
\nSuperintendent\tat a University Examination and\t in  signing
\nthe  name  of another person on the examination\t papers\t was
\nheld  to  indicate  an intention on his\t part  to  lead\t the
\nUniversity  authorities\t to  believe  that  the\t examination
\npapers were answered by the other person.  This again is  on
\nthe  principle that the deception of the Superintendent\t who
\nwas  working  for  the University was  a  deception  of\t the
\nUniversity itself.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly,   in\t  Ashwini   Kumar   Gupta   v.\t  Emperor(2)
\nthe  accused  personated  another  person  at  a  University
\nexamination  cheating the Registrar.  It was held that\tthis
\nnot  only damaged the reputation of the Registrar, but\talso
\nthat  of the University.  Reference may also be made to\t the
\ncase reported as In re: Hampshire Land Company(3) in which a
\nSociety had lent money to a company on the borrowing of\t the
\ndirectors of that company who were not competent to  borrow,
\nthe  resolution\t conferring on them the power  of  borrowing
\nbeing  invalid\tfor certain reasons.  It was held  that\t the
\nSociety had a right to assume, in a case like that, that all
\nthe  essentials of internal management had been carried\t out
\nby  the borrowing company.  On the same principle it can  be
\nsaid that the Government of the State had a right to  assume
\nthat the Service Commission had verified that the candidates
\nselected  by it for appointment by the Government  possessed
\nthe  necessary qualifications and in that view the  scrutiny
\nby the Service Commission can be said to be on behalf of the
\nGovernment.\n<\/p>\n
The  Government\t appointed the appellant to a  post  in\t its
\nMedical\t Service on being induced by deception that  he\t was
\nfully qualified for the appointment.  In consequence of\t the
\nappointment,  Government had to pay him. the salaries  which
\nfell  due.   It is clear therefore that\t the  appellant,  by
\ndeceiving the Government, dishonestly induced it to  deliver
\nproperty  to him and thus committed the offence of  cheating
\nunder s. 415 I.P.C. as he pretended to be Kaza Krishnamurthy
\nwhich  he was not.  The offence really committed by him\t was
\n‘cheating’  by personation, punishable under s.\t 419  I.P.C.
\nThe  conviction\t of  the  appellant  for  this\toffence\t  is
\ntherefore  correct.  We accordingly dismiss his\t appeal\t and
\norder  that he will surrender to his bail and serve out\t the
\nsentence.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) I.L.R. 12 Mad. 151.\t  (2) I.L.R. 1937 (1) Cal. 71.
\n(3) 1896 (2) Ch. 743.\n<\/p>\n
419<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 333, 1964 SCR (7) 410 Author: R Dayal Bench: Dayal, Raghubar PETITIONER: KANUMUKKALA KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/03\/1964 BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR BENCH: DAYAL, RAGHUBAR SUBBARAO, K. GUPTA, K.C. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20345","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-29T01:46:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T01:46:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964\"},\"wordCount\":3604,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964\",\"name\":\"Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-03-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-29T01:46:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-29T01:46:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964","datePublished":"1964-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T01:46:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964"},"wordCount":3604,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964","name":"Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-03-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-29T01:46:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kanumukkala-krishna-murthy-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-23-march-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 23 March, 1964"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20345"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20345\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}