Case Analysis: Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Case Details

Case name: Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judges: Raghubar Dayal, K.C. Das Gupta
Date of decision: 23 March 1964
Citation / citations: 1965 AIR 333, 1964 SCR (7) 410
Case number / petition number: Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 1962; Criminal Revision Case No. 298 of 1961
Neutral citation: 1964 SCR (7) 410
Proceeding type: Criminal Appeal (by special leave)
Source court or forum: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Source Judgment: Read judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Kanumukkala Krishna Murthy, was a Civil Assistant Surgeon serving temporarily in the Madras Medical Service. In 1948 he applied to the Madras Public Service Commission for a permanent post of Assistant Surgeon. In his application he falsely represented that his name was Kaza Krishnamurthy, that he was born in Bezwada, that his father was K. R. Rao, and that he possessed an M.B.B.S. degree (II Class) from Andhra Medical College. The Commission interviewed him, relied on these representations, and recommended him for appointment. The Government of Madras accepted the recommendation, appointed him, and paid him a salary. He subsequently served for about ten years and received satisfactory reports from his superiors.

The appellant was tried before a Magistrate for offences under sections 419, 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. He was acquitted of the section 465 charge and convicted of section 419. The Sessions Court affirmed the conviction under section 419 and imposed a sentence. The appellant filed a revision (Criminal Revision Case No. 298 of 1961) before the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which dismissed the revision and upheld the conviction. By special leave, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of India (Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 1962), seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence.

Issues, Contentions and Controversy

The Court was required to determine whether the appellant’s false statements in his application satisfied the statutory definition of cheating under section 415 of the Indian Penal Code and, consequently, whether the conviction under section 419 (cheating by personation) was proper. The specific issues were:

Whether the deception was likely to cause damage to the reputation of the Madras Public Service Commission (first limb of s. 415).

Whether the deception induced the delivery of any property to the appellant, such as an admission card for a competitive examination or the salary paid by the Government (second limb of s. 415).

Whether deception of the Commission could be treated as deception of the Government of Madras, the ultimate appointing authority, for the purposes of s. 415 and s. 419.

The appellant contended that no offence under s. 419 was made out because his professional efficiency was undisputed, that no reputational damage to the Commission occurred, that no “property” (e.g., admission card) was delivered, and that the deception ceased with the Commission’s interview. The State argued that the false claim of an M.B.B.S. degree deceived the Commission and, through it, the Government, which was induced to appoint the appellant and to pay his salary, thereby delivering property and satisfying both limbs of s. 415 and the element of personation under s. 419.

Statutory Framework and Legal Principles

Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code defines cheating as the act of deceiving a person and fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property, to consent to the retention of any property, or to do or omit an act which the person would not have done or omitted if not deceived, where such act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person’s body, mind, reputation or property. Section 419 deals with cheating by personation, prescribing punishment when the deception is committed by assuming a false identity.

The definition of “property” under s. 415 includes not only tangible items but also salary or other pecuniary benefits payable by the Government. The “person deceived” is not limited to the immediate recipient of the false representation; deception of an agent or adviser of an authority is deemed deception of the authority itself.

The Madras Public Service Commission, created under the Government of India Act, 1935 (ss. 264, 266) and governed by Article 320 of the Constitution of India, acted as a statutory adviser to the Government of Madras in appointments. The Madras Medical Registration Act, 1914, prescribed the qualifications for medical posts, including registration and possession of a medical degree.

The legal test applied required the Court to examine (i) whether the deception was likely to cause reputational damage to the person deceived, and (ii) whether the deception induced the delivery of property to the appellant.

Court’s Reasoning and Application of Law

The Court first examined the first limb of s. 415. It observed that the appellant’s false statements concerned his identity and qualifications, which were material for the appointment. However, the record contained no evidence that the Commission’s reputation was damaged or that the Commission could have ordinarily detected the falsehood. Accordingly, the Court held that the element of damage or likely damage to the Commission’s reputation was not proved.

Turning to the second limb, the Court considered whether any property was delivered as a result of the deception. It rejected the State’s contention that an admission card for a written examination constituted property, finding no evidence of any written examination or admission card in the record. The Court then identified the salary paid by the Government to the appellant as “property” within the meaning of s. 415.

Applying the principle that deception of an agent or adviser amounts to deception of the principal, the Court held that the false representation made to the Public Service Commission persisted until the Government of Madras issued the appointment order. By relying on the Commission’s recommendation, the Government was deceived and was induced to deliver salary to the appellant. This satisfied the second limb of s. 415 and, because the deception was committed by personating a false identity, also satisfied the element of cheating by personation under s. 419.

The Court therefore affirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant’s conduct fell within the offence of cheating by personation.

Final Relief and Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal, ordered that he surrender to bail, and directed that he serve the sentence imposed for the conviction under section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction was upheld, and the appellant was required to comply with the sentence.