Judgment

DUA, J. :- This is an appeal on certificate under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution granted by the Allahabad High Court from its judgment dated March 7, 1969 convicting the three appellants for an offence under S. 109 read with S. 465, I.P.C.

2. The three appellants Raghunath Prasad, Viswanath and Pyarelal were tried for offences under, inter alia, Ss. 114/465, 114/467, 114/468, I.P.C. and S. 82 (d) of the Indian Registration Act. Raghunath Prasad was in addition tried for an offence under Section 471, I.P.C. The Second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur acquitted them of the offences under the Penal Code on the ground that it was not safe to convict them on the sole testimony of the complainant Smt. Sukh Devi. So far as the offences under S. 82 (d) of the Registration Act is concerned there was the additional ground for acquittal, namely, absence of sanction of the registration authorities for their prosecution under S. 82 of that Act. The necessary permission having not been obtained, the prosecution failed on this ground as well. This view was taken on the basis of Emperor v. Kushal Pal Singh, ILR 53 All 804.

3. On appeal by the complainant Smt. Sukh Devi the High Court went into the evidence and in a well-considered judgment came to the conclusion that the offence under S. 109 read with S. 465, I.P.C. was fully established and sentenced Raghunath Prasad to rigorous imprisonment for one year and Viswanath and Pyarelal to rigorous imprisonment for six months each. The point on which the High Court granted certificate of fitness related to the requirement of the complaint by the court as contemplated by S. 195 (1) (c), Cr. P. C. for the appellants prosecution. In order to appreciate the question arising for our determination we may briefly state the facts giving rise to the appellants prosecution.

4. One Chhidammi, resident of village Taranpur, died somewhere about 1940 leaving behind his widow Smt. Sukh Devi, who, after sometime started living with her brother Muzajilal in village Itkhuda, Raghunath Prasad, appellant, is a resident of village Taranpur whereas accused Viswanath and Pyarelal are residents of village Itkhuda. On July 3, 1961 Raghunath Prasad got a sale deed executed by an unknown lady in respect of the properties of Smt. Sukh Devi which she had inherited from her husband Chhidami. The unknown lady had been put forward to personate Smt. Sukh Devi, Pyarelal and Viswanth identified that lady as Smt. Sukh Devi before the Sub-Registrar in the registration office at Bhognipur knowing that she was not in fact Smt. Sukh Devi. It was in these circumstances that a forged sale deed was secured by Raghunath Prasad with the aid and abetment of his two co-appellants. After thus securing a sale deed Raghunath Prasad filed an application in the court of the Tehsildar for mutation of revenue entries in his favour and in those proceedings he used the said forged sale deed as genuine knowing it to be forged. Smt. Sukh Devi, on receipt of notice, resisted Raghunath Prasad s application by denying having ever sold the plot in question or having ever executed and got registered the alleged sale deed. Raghunath Prasad s claim for securing the mutation in his favour failed and his prayer was rejected. The matter was taken by him unsuccessfully to the highest revenue authorities and indeed he went right upto the High Court on revision but without success. Smt. Sukh Devi, after her success in the High Court, filed a complaint against the appellants (and an unknown woman whose name was struck off as per order dated December 21, 1961) under Ss. 465, 468 and 471, I.P.C. in the court of the judicial officer, Bhognipur which was later transferred to the court of the Sub-Magistrate, Shri J. N. Mehrotra. After the necessary enquiry the appellants were committed for being tried in the Sessions Court. The charges were amended in the Sessions Court and the three accused were charged under Ss. 114/419, 114/465, 114/466, 114/467 I