The term “property” used in Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to define the offence of cheating cannot be rendered an attenuated view as it would also mean the “service or employment” that a candidate would join as it provides “security of tenure, which is valuable”, the High Court of Karnataka has said.
“Therefore, the valuable security is akin to property... and in cases where fraud and misrepresentation form the foundation for securing employment can be brought under the umbrella of the ingredients of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC,” the court said.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna made these observations while dismissing a petition filed by one Palaksha S.S., an advocate. The petitioner had questioned the registration of a cheating case and the chargesheet against him for giving false information to the selection committee when he had applied for the post of district judges in 2019.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the term “property” as mentioned in Section 415 of the IPC, would “mean property and nothing else”.
Declining to accept this contention, the court said, “the term ‘property’ cannot be rendered an attenuated view, as in the peculiar facts of the case property would mean, the service that the petitioner would have entered into, as it provides security of tenure which is valuable”.
The petitioner had entered the word ‘no’ in response to the question, ‘whether the applicant is/was involved in any civil/criminal/quasi-judicial proceedings in any capacity’ in the online application. He was one of three persons shortlisted for appointment to the post of district judge as he cleared both the preliminary and main exams, and the interview.
However, the selection committee, before he was appointed to the post, received an anonymous complaint that he was facing nine criminal cases. This had resulted in issuance of notice to him.
In response to the notice, he had claimed that it was due to “human error” as he had misread the word ‘was’ in the online application, and claimed that eight criminal cases were either settled or resulted in acquittal and only the case related to divorce with his wife was pending when he applied for the post.
The court said that the petitioner cannot feign ignorance of the cases in which he was involved or claim that he could not understand the query in the application, as he had 13 years of practice as an advocate when he applied for the post. Also, the application was clearly worded for disclosing both the present and past cases, the court said.
