SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1969 Supreme(Cal) 78

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
A. N. Chakrabarti, Sarma Sarkar
RAM RAJ SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 243  Of  1962
Decided On : MARCH 24, 1969

Advocates Appeared:
ARUN KRISHNA DAS GUPTA, CHINTAHARAN ROY, J.M.BANERJEE, Jaharlal Roy, MAHINDRA NATH ROY, MANAS RANJAN CHAKRAVARTY, N.C.BANERJI

In order to prove forgery, the prosecution must produce evidence that is more than just the opinion of a finger print expert.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - Conspiracy - Forgery - Cheating - Evidence - Proof - Sufficiency - Forgery of thumb impressions on travelling allowance bills - Attestation by sub-inspectors - Absence of evidence of payment to accused persons - No dishonest or fraudulent intent proved - Convictions and sentences set aside.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants, four members of the Railway Protection Police, were convicted of conspiracy, forgery, and cheating in connection with the submission of false travelling allowance claims. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had forged thumb impressions on the acquittance columns of the travelling allowance bills and that they had attested these false thumb impressions as genuine. The appellants denied the charges and claimed that they were innocent.

Finding of the Court:

The trial court found the appellants guilty of the charges and sentenced them to four years' imprisonment on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. The appellants appealed to the High Court.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had forged the thumb impressions on the travelling allowance bills. 2. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had attested the false thumb impressions as genuine. 3. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had acted dishonestly or fraudulently in submitting the false travelling allowance claims.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the offences charged. The court noted that the prosecution had not produced the duty roster or the command certificate, which would have shown whether the travelling allowance claims were genuine. The court also noted that the prosecution had not produced any direct evidence that the appellants had forged the thumb impressions on the travelling allowance bills. The only evidence of forgery was the opinion of the finger print expert, who had compared the thumb impressions on the bills with the thumb impressions of the appellants and found that they matched. However, the court held that this evidence was insufficient to prove forgery, as it was not corroborated by any other evidence.

Final Decision: The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants, and acquitted them of all charges.

A. N. CHAKBABARTI, J.

( 1 ) THERE three appeals have been preferred by four appellants who have been convicted under various sections by the Judge, Additional Special Court, Calcutta, the Appeals Nos. 234 of 1962 and 243 of 1962 being preferred by the appellants Ram Raj Singh and Mangal Singh Limbu respectively and the appeal No. 242 of 1962 by Nagendra Prosad Singh and Ananta Kumar Sinha. All the four appellants have been convicted under Ss. 120-B/420 I. P. C. The appellants Ramrai and Ananta have been further convicted on nine counts, three of which are under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. , three under Section 467 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. and three under Ss. 471/467 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. The appellants Mangal Singh and Nagendra Prcsad have been further convicted on six counts, two of them being under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. , two under Section 467 read with Section 34 I. P. C. and two under Sections 471/467 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. The appellants have all been sentenced to R. J. for four years on each of the counts, the sentences being made to run concurrently.

( 2 ) THE appellants were members of the Railway Protection Police, now known as Railway Protection Force, stationed at Sealdah Sub-division of the Eastern Railway and having their camp at nf rikeldanga. The appellants Ram Ral Singh and Mangal Singh Limbu held the rank of Sub-Inspector or Subedar while the appellants Ananta Kumac Sinha and Nagendra Prosad Singh were constables. Whenever necessary members of the Railway Protection Police stationed at Sealdah used to be sent on duty to outstations, this being known as 'line duty'. For such 'line duty' the members of the force were entitled to get some travelling allowance. For the purpose of drawing the travelling allowance they were required to submit T. A. Journals furnishing the details of the journeys made. As most of the Constables were illiterate the journals used to be prepared by some of the literate Constables in the camp while those in whose names the journals were prepared used to put their thumb-impressions or signatures on them. There were bill clerks in the office who used to prepare T. A. Bills from these journals. The Bills used to be checked first by the Sub-Inspectors who were Platoon Commandants and then by the Inspectors who were Company Commandants and thereafter also by the Assistant Commandant and Commandant and then sent to the Divisional Accounts Office. When the Bills had been passed by the Divisional Accounts Office payments used to be made through pay clerks. The persons taking payment had to put their signatures or thumb-impressions on the T. A, Bills by way of acquittance, such signatures and thumb impressions being attested by a Sub-Inspector.

( 3 ) SOME time in the year 1955 a complaint reached the authorities that some malpractices were prevalent in the Sealdah R. P. P. in the matter of drawing of travelling allowances. This led to an enquiry which revealed some facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants and another person named Sourendra Nath Mukerjee since acquitted by the trial Court.

( 4 ) THE allegations against the appellants were briefly these: During the year 1953 and part of 1954 the appellants Ananta Kumar Sinha and Nagendra Prosad Singh who were literate Constables had fabricated a large number of false T. A. Journals in the names of various persons. The journals contained thumb-impressions which purported to be those of the persons in whose names travelling allowances were claimed, but in reality they were the thumb-impressions of the appellants Ananta and Nagendra Prosad. The T. A. Bills contained thumb-impressions which purported to be given by way of acquittance by the officers receiving payments. These thumb-impressions also were of either Ananta or Nagendra Prosad. The appellants Ram Raj and Mangal Singh who were Sub-Inspectors attested these false thumb-impressions in the T. A

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top