Back
1955 Supreme(Pat) 49
PATNA HIGH COURT
Misra, J.
Mangal Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Revision No. 1211 of 1954 ;
Decided On : MAY 05, 1955
A document is not a forged document within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464 of the Penal Code unless it is fraudulent or dishonest and has the tendency to harm the interest of a third person.
Headnote:
PENAL CODE - SECTIONS 193, 467, 471 - FABRICATION OF FALSE EVIDENCE - FORGERY - USING FORGED DOCUMENT AS GENUINE - ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS - MATERIALITY OF DOCUMENT - INTENTION TO INJURE THIRD PERSON.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was convicted of charges under Sections 467, 471, and 193 of the Penal Code for filing a forged deed of exchange in a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal P.C. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of the disputed land, while the other party claimed bataidar rights. The Sub-divisional Officer found the deed to be forged and initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner had filed the forged document in the 144 Cr.P.C. case, but that there was no forgery of any party's signature. The antedating of the document, however, amounted to fraudulent making of a document and, thus, forgery under Section 464 of the Penal Code. The petitioner was also found guilty of using the forged document as genuine under Section 471 of the Penal Code. The court further held that the petitioner's conviction under Section 193 for fabricating false evidence was valid, as the deed was brought into existence to support his false claim of possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the deed of exchange was a forged document within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464 of the Penal Code? 2. Whether the petitioner fabricated false evidence within the meaning of Section 192 of the Penal Code? 3. Whether the petitioner used a forged document as genuine knowing it to be forged under Section 471 of the Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the deed of exchange was not a forged document within the meaning of Sections 463 and 464 of the Penal Code. The antedating of the document was not fraudulent or dishonest, as it was done to evidence the actual exchange that took place in May 1950. The document did not harm the interest of any third person, as it only affected the title of the two parties to the exchange. 2. The court held that the petitioner did not fabricate false evidence within the meaning of Section 192 of the Penal Code. The deed of exchange did not contain any recital of past possession, and thus, it was not relevant for determining the existence of a subordinate interest on the land. The document was only relevant for the purpose of exchanging title, which did not affect the rights of the bataidars. 3. The court held that the petitioner could not be convicted under Section 471 of the Penal Code for using a forged document as genuine, as the deed of exchange was not a forged document.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the petitioner's conviction under Sections 193 and 467 of the Penal Code, and acquitted him of all charges.
Misra, J.
1. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Arrah convicted petitioner Mangal Singh of charges under Sections 467, 471 and 193 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Sec. 467, Penal Code. He was also sentenced to the same term of imprisonment under Sec. 471. Penal Code. No separate sentence was, however, passed on his conviction under Sec.193, Penal Code.
The sentences under Sections 467 and 471 of the Penal Code were made concurrent. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Arrah upheld the convictions but reduced the sentences both under Sections 467 and 471, Penal Code, to two years and ordered them to run concurrently. This petition has been preferred against the conviction and sentence passed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
2. The petitioner was prosecuted as a result of a proceeding under Sec. 476 of the Criminal P.C. ordered against him by the learned Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar. The petitioner was alleged to have filed a sada deed of exchange dated 4-5-1950, in the court of the learned Sub-divisional Officer in a proceeding under Sec.144. Criminal P. C. That proceeding related to a dispute between petitioner Mangal Singh on the one hand and Ramraj Gareri and his cousin Ramjatan Gareri on the other. The latter claimed the land to be in their possession as bataidar. They stated that they had been in possession of the land in dispute which was plot No. 698 for several years before the date of the proceeding.
The petitioner, on the other hand, claimed to be in khas possession of the land. It appears that the proceeding terminated in favour of the bataidars and that the learned Sub-divisional Officer did not accept the case of the petitioner that he was in khas possession of the disputed lands. On the termination of the proceedings, however, the learned Sub-divisional Officer was of the opinion that the sada deed of exchange referred to above was a forged document and had been brought into existence to support the false claim of the petitioner and, as such, he was guilty of fabricating this document as well as of using it knowing it to be a forged document. On a complaint having been filed accordingly, the petitioner was committed to the court of session to take his trial on the above three charges under Sections 467, 471 and 193, Penal Code.
3. It may be stated at this stage that the principal ground for the prosecution of the petitioner was that the sada deed of exchange which is Ext. 9 in the case was alleged to have been executed on 4-5-1950 whereas the cartridge paper on which it was written was issued on 17-8-1950, so that this piece of paper could not have been available for the execution of the deed of exchange on 4-5-1950, as alleged by the prosecution.
It was, accordingly, thought expedient by the learned Sub-divisional Officer that the petitioner should be prosecuted for using this forged document in the legal proceeding before him and, accordingly, the criminal case which resulted in the conviction of the petitioner was lodged.
4. The petitioner denied the charge. His defence was that plot No. 698 was actually in his possession by virtue of exchange between him and Kariman Singh. He did not file this document in the 144 Cr. P.C. case and that all steps in that case were taken on his behalf by one Parmanand Misser.
The scribe was also the same man, Parmanand Misser. All the three persons, namely, petitioner Mangal Singh, Kariman Singh, who was the other party to the sada deed of exchange, and Parma Nand Misser, the scribe, were ordered to be prosecuted but the committing court discharged Kariman Singh and Parmanand Misser.
5. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the petitioner, in fact, had filed the document in the 144 Cr.P.C. case in the court of the learned Sub-divisional Officer and that although there was no forgery of the signature of any party, but in any cas
