Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.
State of Karnataka, Appellant
Versus
Hemareddy and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 1975, D/- 27-1-1981.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. Nettar, Advocate and Mr. R. C. Kaushik, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. P. Ram Reddy, Sr. Advocate and Mr. A. V. V. Nair, Advocate, for Respondent No. 1.
Indian Penal Code ,1860 – Sections 120-B, 193, 465, 467, 468 ,420,1114 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Sections 190.195,195(1)(b),195(1)(c) - Appeal Against Conviction - Appeal filed by also learned Judges found that there could be no doubt that she is guilty under S. 467, I. P. C. They confirmed the conviction of, observing that she forged the document independently of alias but taking into consideration fact that is an illiterate woman who had been taken to Office of Sub-Registrar by alias and asked to put her thumb impression to document and admit execution of the document, which she did for which alias paid her a sum of learned Judges felt that sentence awarded to by learned Sessions Judge was harsh and that ends of justice would be met by sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one day, which she had already undergone before she was probably released on bail, and to pay a fine of and in default to suffer R. I. for a period of one week and thus modified the sentence awarded to accordingly - State has filed appeal by special leave also against this order modifying sentence awarded to– Held, Court were taken through the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court. We are satisfied that learned Judges were justified in coming to the conclusion on evidence that alias is guilty under S. 467 read with S. 114, I. P. C. and that is guilty under S. 467, I. P. C. Since we agree with learned Judges of High Court on the question of fact in so far as it relates to A-2 in full and as regards alias (A-2) in respect of his conviction under S. 467 read with S. 114, it is unnecessary for us to refer to evidence relied upon by learned Judges for coming to the conclusion that alias is guilty under Section 467 read with S. 114, I. P. C. and that is guilty under Section 467, I. P. C. This Court has observed in that it is not duty of appellate Court when it agrees with view of the trial Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice. We shall deal with the case of the prosecution against alias under Section 193. I. P. C. separately - In this Court the main contention raised on behalf of the appellants by their learned counsel was that even prosecution for an offence under Section 465 I. P. C. requires complaint by the revenue court concerned as such an offence is covered by Section 195 (1) (c), Cr. P. C. This contention is difficult to accept - This Court has recently in after considering the conflict of judicial opinion on this point, approved view taken - According to that decision the words "to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any court" in Section 195 (1) (c) mean that offence should be alleged to have been committed by party to the proceeding in his character as such party, that is, after having become a party to proceeding - Appellants learned counsel tried to distinguish decision of the Allahabad High Court in case (supra) by pointing out that in that case the offence of forgery was alleged to have been committed in 1898, more than 25 years before it was produced or given in evidence in court and it was for this reason that Section 195 (1) (c). Cr. P. C. was held to be inapplicable - In our view, duration of time between date of forgery and production or giving in evidence of forged document in court is not a governing factor - Ordered accordingly
Judgment
VARADARAJAN. J.:- This appeal by special leave has been filed by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Appeals Nos. 324 and 335 of 1973 against the acquittal of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy (A-1) in Crl. A. No. 324 of 1973 and against the order in Crl. A. No. 335 of 1973 modifying the sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Raichur to Pyatal Bhimakka (A-2) in Sessions Case No. 25/72. The learned Sessions Judge convicted Hemareddy alias Vemareddy under S. 467 read with S. 114 and S. 193 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default to undergo R. I. for three months under S. 467 read with S. 114 and to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo R. I. for one month for the offence under S. 193, I. P. C. He convicted Pyatal Bhimakka (A-2), the appellant in Cri. A. No. 335 of 1973 before the High Court, under S. 467, I. P., C. and sentenced her to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo R. I. for one month. Both the accused filed appeals before the High Court against their convictions and sentences awarded to them by the learned Sessions Judge.
2. In Crl. A. No. 324 of 1973 filed by Hemareddy alias Vemareddy, the learned Judges held that an the facts there could be no doubt that he is guilty under Section 467 read with S. 114 and S. 193, I. P. C. In the appeal filed by Pyatal Bhimakka, Crl. A. No. 335/73, also the learned Judges found that there could be no doubt that she is guilty under S. 467, I. P. C. They confirmed the conviction of Pyatal Bhimakka, observing that she forged the document independently of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy, but taking into consideration the fact that Pyatal Bhimakka is an illiterate woman who had been taken to the Office of the Sub-Registrar by Hemareddy alias Vemareddy and asked to put her thumb impression to the document and admit execution of the document, which she did for which Hemareddy alias Vemareddy paid her a sum of Rs. 100/-, the learned Judges felt that the sentence awarded to Pyatal Bhimakka by the learned Sessions Judge was harsh and that the ends of justice would be met by sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one day, which she had already undergone before she was probably released on bail, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to suffer R. I. for a period of one week and thus modified the sentence awarded to Pyatal Bhimakka accordingly. The State has filed the appeal by special leave also against this order modifying the sentence awarded to Pyatal Bhimakka.
3. The learned Judges of the High Court, however, acquitted Hemareddy alias Vemareddy, the appellant in Crl. A. No. 324 of 1973 and set aside the sentence awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge on the ground that the complaint in the criminal case which ended in the conviction of both accused in the Sessions Court, was filed by the private individual Narsappa Eliger, P. W. 3 and not by the Civil Court. As stated earlier the Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State against the acquittal of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy by the High Court.
4. It is necessary to set out briefly the facts of the case. One Narsappa is the son of one Thimmaiah who had an elder brother Nagappa. Thimmaiah and Nagappa were the sons of one Thayappa. Nagappas wife was one Bhimakka alias Bhisamma. Thimmaiah and Nagappa lived for sometime in Undraldoddi. Nagappa purchased lands bearing Survey Nos. 93, 94 and 96 in Undraldoddi. Those lands were in the possession and enjoyment of Narsappas father Thimmaiah. Subsequently, Naggppa and his wife left Undraldoddi and settled down in Alkur village. While Nagappa was living in Alkur village, he mortgaged the aforesaid lands with possession to one Kurbar Bhimayya, the father of Hemareddy alias Vemareddy, A-1. According to the terms of the mortgage, Kurbar Bhimayya was t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
