Back
1943 Supreme(SC) 28
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD MACMILLAN, LORD PORTER, LORD CLAUSON, SIR GEORGE RANKIN AND SIR MADHAVAN NAIR.
THAKUR SHAH - Appellant
Versus
THE KING-EMPEROR - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Patna.
Decided On : June. 24. 1943.
Solicitors for appellant:T. L. Wilson & Co. Solicitor for respondent: Solicitor, India Office.
Abetment relates to the offence, not the specific offender. Under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an appellate court may amend a charge to abetment by an unknown person, provided the accused is not prejudiced and has a fair opportunity to defend.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 107, 108, 109 and 466; Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 236, 237 and 423 - Abetment of forgery - Power of appellate court to amend charge - Abetment relates to the offence rather than the specific offender - Amendment permissible if no prejudice is caused to the accused.
(B) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 423 - Wide powers of amendment granted to appellate courts to make any amendment that may be just or proper, provided the accused is not prejudiced because he is not fully aware of the charge or is not given a full opportunity of meeting it.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of abetting the forgery of a court decree and a compromise petition. A plot of land, which was not part of a joint family property partition, was interpolated into these documents to be assigned to the appellant. The appellant obtained original copies of the decree through deceptive means, used the forged documents to mutate his name in land records, and attempted to bribe a court official to validate the interpolations. While the co-accused alleged to have committed the actual forgery were acquitted due to insufficient corroboration of accomplice evidence, the conviction of the appellant for abetment was upheld by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence established the commission of forgery by some person or persons and its abetment by the appellant. The appellant's conduct, including the acquisition of original documents and the attempt to mutate land records, combined with the fact that he was the only party with a motive for the forgery, led to the irresistible conclusion that the documents were forged at his instance.
Issues: Whether the court could alter the charge to abetment of forgery by a person or persons unknown, or convict of such an offence without amending the charge, and whether such an amendment was proper given the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 423 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appellate courts possess wide powers to amend charges. Abetment, as defined in the Indian Penal Code, relates to the offence rather than the specific offender; therefore, the identity of the person who committed the substantive crime is a secondary consideration. An amendment to the charge is permissible if it does not prejudice the accused, meaning the accused remains aware of the facts and is not prevented from presenting a defense. In this case, the appellant was not misled by the form of the charge and no further evidence could have assisted his defense.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences involving property
- forgery
- abetment
-
offences involving property
-
practice and procedure
-
criminal procedure
- amendment of charges
- appellate jurisdiction
-
criminal procedure
Judgement
Appeal (No. 15 of 1942), by special leave, from a judgment of the High Court (December 22, 1939) confirming the con viction of the appellant for abetment of forgery under s. 466 read with s. 109 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment passed on him by the Sessions Judge of the Santhal Parganas (September 8, 1939).
The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The appellant was charged with abetting one Jagannath Singh and one Matuk Chandra Das in forging a certain decree sheet and compromise petition, which were court records, and was found guilty by the Sessions Judge of the Santhal Parganas, and that conviction was upheld by the High Court. In 1934, the appellant, one Buchai, and his son Khudi, were parties to a suit for the partition of their joint family property, a suit which was eventually compromised. To effect their purpose the parties, on December 13, 1935, filed a compromise petition in accordance with which a decree of the court was drawn up and signed on the twenty-third of the same month. It was common ground that a certain plot of land situate in Jasidih Bazar, and numbered 67, was not part of the joint family property but was purchased by Khudi during the pendency of the suit, and that a registered sale deed assigning the property to him was drawn up, dated January 22, I935- That plot, therefore, was not included in the compromise petition or the decree ; it was, and remained, in the possession of Khudi in the sense that he received rent from its tenants. By an interpolation in each document that piece of property had now been added to the share assigned to Thakur in both the petition and decree. The prosecutions case was that the appellant procured that insertion in those two places and abetted the forgery. By the charge they asserted, and in evidence they sought to prove, that the forgery was carried out as to the decree sheet by Jagannath abetted by Matuk, and as to the petition by Matuk abetted by Jagannath. The appellant was accused of abetting both those persons in the offence of forging the two documents. All the accused had pleaded not guilty. Direct evidence of the commission of the substantive offence by Jagannath and Matuk was given by one Chandrama Singh, whose story was to some extent corroborated, and was accepted by the Sessions Judge in spite of the view that the witness must be regarded as an accomplice. The High Court also thought him to be in the position of an accomplice, but, contrary to the view of the trial judge, thought him to be insufficiently corroborated to justify a conviction for forgery against either of the two persons accused of that crime. Accordingly the High Court (Chatterji and Rowland JJ.) acquitted Matuk and Jagannath of the crime of forgery. Nevertheless they went on to consider whether the facts established would justify a conviction of each of the three accused for abetment of forgery, and held (1.) that those facts were not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Matuk was guilty, but (2.) were sufficient to incriminate the appellant and Jagannath, whose convictions of abetment were accordingly upheld. A further co-accused, one Jai Prasad Missir, who had been convicted by the Sessions Judge, was acquitted on all charges, and their Lordships were not concerned with his case.
1943 May 24. Khambatta for the appellant. G. D. Roberts K.C. and W.
W. K. Page for the respondent.
June 24. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD PORTER, who stated the facts above set out, and continued The history of the case was fully and accurately stated in the judgment of Chatterji J. in the High Court and need not be "repeated at length here. Jagannath has not appealed and, in their Lordships view, there was ample evidence to convict him of abetting a person or persons unknown in committing either of the forgeries charged, provided it was permissible for the court so to charge and convict him
