Back
1961 Supreme(Cal) 85
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
J. P. MITRA, D. N. DAS GUPTA
GOBINDA PRASAD PARUI - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Criminal Appeal 374 Of 1959
Decided On : MAY 10, 1961
KALI MOHAN CHAKRABORTY, MUKTI MAITRA
The original bainapatra was considered a valuable security, and the misdirection by the learned Judge led to setting aside the Jury's verdict.
Headnote:
Forgery - Registered Bainapatra - The court held that the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code as the charge was in respect of the registered bainapatra and not in respect of any copy. The original bainapatra was considered a valuable security, not a copy of it. The misdirection by the learned Judge as to the nature of the document was a serious misdirection, leading to the setting aside of the Jury's verdict and the appellant's discharge from bail bond.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a pleader's clerk, was charged with forgery under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code for altering a registered bainapatra. The appellant pleaded not guilty, claiming coercion to make a confessional statement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 467 as the charge was in respect of the registered bainapatra and not in respect of any copy. The misdirection by the learned Judge led to setting aside the Jury's verdict and the appellant's discharge from bail bond.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of the document, whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 467, and the misdirection by the learned Judge.
Ratio Decidendi: The original bainapatra was considered a valuable security, not a copy of it, and the misdirection by the learned Judge led to setting aside the Jury's verdict.
Final Decision: The Jury's verdict and the consequent conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant were set aside, and the appellant was discharged from his bail bond.
( 1 ) THE appellant was tried upon a charge under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code by a learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Alipore, sitting with a Jury. The Jury returned a unanimous verdict of guilty which the learned Judge accepted. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 1/2 years.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case was that the appellant, a pleader's clerk, committed forgery by altering the digit * "8" to * "3" of the figure * "1368" as also by erasing the word * (sic) in a copy of a registered bainapatra kept in volume 85 at Alipore Sub-registry Office. The charge however way forging * a certain document purporting to be a valuable security, to wit, a registered bainapatra, executed by Nabiruddin Mistry in favour of Bepin Behary Das, deed No. 7675 of the year 1955 recorded in volume No. 85 at page 288 etc.
( 3 ) THE appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and his case was that he had been coerced to make a confessional statement to the Sub-Regis trar, Alipore.
( 4 ) IT is not disputed that nowhere in his summing up did the learned Judge refer to the document as a copy of the registered bainapatra. As already observed, the charge was in respect of the registered bainapatra and not in respect of any copy. The question, therefore, was whether or not on the charge as it stood the appellant could have been convicted, it being common case that there was no forgery of the original registered bainapatra. There is the further question as to whether or not the copy of the document concerned can be regarded as a valuable security within the meaning of Section 30. In our view, it is the original bainapatra which is a valuable security and not a copy of it. Therefore, the appellant could not in any event have been convicted under Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code. With regard to these two matters of law, the learned Judge not only misdirected himself but also misdirected the Jury. The misdirection as to the nature of the document was, in our view, a very serious misdirection which was (bound to induce an erroneous verdict. In that view of the matter we are obliged to set aside the Jury's verdict and the consequent conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellant. We direct accordingly. Let the appellant be discharged from his bail bond.
