Judgement

Appeal (No. 38 of 1938), by special leave, from a judgment of the High Court (December 2, 1936), which in part affirmed the convictions and affirmed the sentence passed on the appellant by the Special Magistrate, Lahore (May 28, 1936).

The Special Magistrate convicted the appellant, Bawa Faqir Singh, an advocate of the High Court at Lahore, of conspiring to commit forgery and of conspiring fraudulently to use as genuine a forged document, offences punishable under s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code, read, respectively, with s. 467 and s. 471 of the Penal Code, and he sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment.

On appeal by the appellant to the High Court (Skemp J.) the conviction on the charge of conspiracy to commit forgery was set aside, but the conviction on the charge of conspiracy fraudulently to use as genuine a forged document was affirmed, and the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment maintained.

The relevant facts and circumstances giving rise to the prosecution out of which this appeal arose, and the terms of the material provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1938. June 30. J. M. Pringle for the appellant. G. D. Roberts K.C., W. Wallach and John Megaw for the respondent.

July 21. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD WRIGHT. The appellant was convicted and sentenced on May 28, 1936, by the Special Magistrate of the District of Lahore under s. 120B (conspiracy) and s. 471 (using as genuine a forged document known to be forged) of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence was a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years. The conviction and sentence were confirmed on appeal. The ground of this appeal is that the Special Magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the case, since it came within the provision of s. 337 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and could only be lawfully tried in the circumstances of the case by the High Court or Court of Session. This objection was overruled by a decision of the High Court of Lahore, and in effect it is from that decision that this appeal is brought.

The facts, which are so far as relevant not in dispute, may be shortly stated. The appellant, an advocate of the High Court, acted as counsel for G. S. Kochar, who was plaintiff in a suit in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge based on a promissory note. The plaintiff succeeded against two of the defendants, both before the Subordinate Judge and on appeal. Meantime, complaints had been made by Durga Das, the defendant against whom the case was dismissed, that his signature to the promissory note had been forged. On May 14, 1928, the District Magistrate, acting on a police report, directed the issue of warrants against six persons, including the appellant and two other persons, Sain Dass and Vishwa Mitter. On June 3, 1928, the District Magistrate had brought before him Sain Dass, who was then in custody, and read over to him a document which had been enclosed with a letter sent to him by the Local Government. The letter, which was in answer to a communication from the District Magistrate on the question of obtaining evidence from one or more of the accused persons, was in the following terms—

"Subject—Grant of a promise of pardon to Sain Dass son of L. Nagar Mal.

"Sir,

"In reply to your unofficial note No. 751, dated the 19th "May, 1928, I am directed by the Governor in Council to state "that Sain Dass may be offered a promise of pardon in the "terms of the enclosed draft.

"The said enclosed draft ran as follows—

"PROMISE.’

"Whereas Sain Dass son of L. Nagar Mal, caste Khatri, "Manager, Central Co-operative Bank, Karnal, has undertaken "to make a full and true disclosure of the whole of the facts "within his knowledge regarding the criminal activities of "B. Faqir Singh son of B. Bir Singh, Bhalla, Advocate, High "Court, Lahore and other persons mentioned in the margin, "and whereas His Excellency the Governor in Council is "pleased to d