Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Narayan JJ.
Province Of Bihar
Versus
Surendra Prasad Ojha
Government Appeal No. 3 of 1950 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 07, 1950
CRIMINAL APPEAL - CONFESSION - SECTION 164(3) COMPLIANCE - FORGERY - SECTIONS 468 & 471, I. P. C. - CHEATING - SECTIONS 419 & 420, I. P. C. - INTERPRETATION & APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the Government of Bihar, appealed against the acquittal of the respondent by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Mozaffarpore on various charges, including forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust. The prosecution alleged that the respondent forged a Store Issue Order to obtain delivery of rice from a government godown and sold the rice to a third party.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the confession made by the respondent before a magistrate was admissible in evidence as it was made voluntarily and in compliance with Section 164(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court also found that the respondent had forged the Store Issue Order and sold it to a third party, thereby committing offenses under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Court acquitted the respondent of the charges under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the respondent had cheated the government.
Issues: 1. Whether the confession made by the respondent was admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the respondent had forged the Store Issue Order and sold it to a third party. 3. Whether the respondent had cheated the government.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the confession made by the respondent was admissible in evidence as it was made voluntarily and in compliance with Section 164(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court relied on the fact that the magistrate had warned the respondent that he was not bound to make a statement and that any statement he made could be used against him, and that the magistrate had questioned the respondent to satisfy himself that the confession was made voluntarily. 2. The Court found that the respondent had forged the Store Issue Order and sold it to a third party, thereby committing offenses under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court relied on the respondent's confession, the recovery of the forged Store Issue Order from the third party, and the seizure of a booklet containing blank Store Issue Orders from the respondent's possession. 3. The Court acquitted the respondent of the charges under Sections 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the respondent had cheated the government. The Court found that the evidence of the third party, who claimed to have purchased the rice from the respondent, was unreliable and that there was no other evidence to support the charges.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal of the respondent, and convicted him of the charges under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years on each of these charges, the sentences to run concurrently.
Ramaswami, J.
1. This appeal is by the Govt. of Bihar against the Judgment of Mr. Tribhuwan Nath Singh, Asst. Ses. J. of Mozaffarporo, acquitting the reap, of various charges.
2. The ease for the prosecution is that Govt. had established grain godowns in Hajipore sub-division for distribution of grain through multipurpose co-operative societies. Govt. had appointed certain firms to be in charge of the gadowns which were under double locks, one set of keys remaining with the Market Inspector & the other set with the stockists. The Grain Control Officer, Hajipore, used to grant "Store Issue Order" in favour of the said societies after the price of the grain had been deposited in the treasury by chalan. According to the prosecution case the resp. forged Store Issue Order No. 366 dated 18-4-1947 with the intention of cheating Govt. It is said that on 25-4-1947 the resp. presented the Store Issue Order to the Govt. stockist M/s. Khublal Sah Gopal Sah by representing himself to be Rambilas Sharma of Bakatpore Society & thereby dishonestly obtained delivery of 145 maunds of rice worth its. 1696/8/0.
3. The resp. denied all the allegations.
4. Three out of the four assessors held that the charges were not fully proved. Agreeing with their opinion the learned Judge acquitted the resp.
5. The prosecution case was based in the main upon a confession made by the resp. on 30-7-1947 before a Mag. Mr. R. D. Narain. The Asst. Ses. J. held that Sec.164 (3) had not been complied with & the confession was not admissible in evidence. In support of this appeal, Mr. S. C. Chakravarti contended that the opinion :of the Asst. Ses. J. was erroneous. Sec.164 (3) is to the following effect:
"A Mag. shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person ranking it that he is not bound to make a confession & that if ho does so it may be used as evidence against him, & no Mag. shall record any such confession unless upon questioning the person making it he has reason to believe that it was made voluntarily."
In the present case Mr. R. D. Narain, Mag. when examined in Ct. deposed that he was satisfied that the confession was voluntary. The record of the confession (Ex. 9) also indicates that the Mag. had questioned the resp. in order to satisfy himself that the confession was voluntarily made. The relevant portion of Ex. 9 is reproduced beneath:
Questions. Answers.
I am a first class Mag. I want to make a
You are not in any way voluntary statement. No
bound to make a statement pressure has been brought to
before me. Any statement bear upon me & no
which you will make before inducemerit hug been given to mo.
me shall be used as I belong to a good family. I
evidence against you. Do you have committed some
want to make a voluntary mis takes in the company of.
statement or is it caused bad persons which I want
by pressure or threat by to state clearly in the
police or any other person? presence of all persons, I Hats
any inducement been shall speak the truth.
given to you? Do you want
to make a voluntary
statement? Do you want to make
any statement?
Mr. Narain deposed in Ct. that on 30-7-1947 he had warned the resp. & given him 25 minutes time to reflect. On the previous date, that is, on 29-7-1947 also the Mag. had warned the resp. It is plain from the record of the confession coupled with the oral evidence of the Mag. That Sec.164 (3), Cr. P. C. has been complied with. The learned Asst. Ses. J. did not believe that Mr. Narain gave warning to the resp., on 29-7-1947. But I see no reason why the sworn testimony of Mr. Narain on this point ought not to be accepted as true. Even if no warning had been given by the Mag. to the resp. on 29-7-1947, it is manifest from the evidence that Sec.164 (3) has been complied with. The Asst. Ses. J. has refd. to
AI
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
