Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT PAUL, J.
Bharat Chandra Dey – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
CRR 140 of 2019
Decided on : 08-08-2023
CRIMINAL LAW - Revision - Cancellation of Deed - Registration - Forgery - Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 32, 33, 34, 35, 58 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 311 - Whether a deed registered after the death of the executant is forged? - Whether the accused persons can be acquitted of all charges on this ground alone? - NO
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner/complainant lodged a complaint alleging that his grandmother Sushama Dey died on 23.08.2000. Sushama Dey during her lifetime owned and possessed 95 decimal of land. The accused Sagar Dey and Manmatha Dey grabbed the said property by impersonating Jogmaya Dasi as Sushama Dey and by obtaining the L.T.I of Jogmaya Dasi, procured a false deed. Ashoke Kumar Singha and Raikishor Sur were the witnesses to the said false deed. They all along stated that their signature was obtained on the promise that they would be given money in return. The defacto complainant could not enjoy his property due to such unlawful possession taken by the accuseds. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Kandi Police Station Case No.92 of 2004 dated 23.05.2004 under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused persons including Manmotha Dey and Aloke Kumar Singha, for investigation. On completion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted in this case against the accused persons under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance was taken and charge framed for trial. The learned Judicial Magistrate, at Kandi after going through the evidence on record, the arguments advanced by the learned advocates of the respective parties, was pleased to pass an order on 22.11.2017 acquitting the opposite parties from the said charges. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.11.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Session Judge, Kandi which was registered as Criminal Appeal CIS Registration No.7 of 2018. After hearing the learned advocates of the respective parties the learned Judge on 04.10.2018 was pleased to affirm the judgment and order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and the appellate court erred in acquitting the accused persons solely on the ground that the deed was registered after the death of the executant. The court failed to consider other evidence that could have established the allegations under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.
Issues: Whether the registration of a deed after the death of the executant renders it forged and provides sufficient grounds for acquitting the accused of all charges under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere fact that a deed is registered after the death of the executant does not automatically render it forged. The court relied on Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which empowers the court to summon any person as a witness or examine any person present, even if not summoned, to ensure a just decision in the case. The court also referred to Sections 32, 33, 34, 35, and 58 of the Registration Act, 1908, which provide for the presentation, registration, and endorsement of documents, including the admission of execution by the parties involved. The court emphasized that the registration process is designed to prevent fraud and provide an unimpeachable record of each document. In this case, the court found that the IInd defendant presented the sale deed as the executant, and therefore, the presentation and registration could not be questioned.
Final Decision: The revisional application (CRR 140 of 2019) was dismissed. The Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kandi, Murshidabad in Criminal Appeal CIS Registration No.07 of 2018 whereby the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kandi, was affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.:
1. The present revision has been preferred against the Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kandi, Murshidabad in Criminal Appeal CIS Registration No.07 of 2018 whereby the Judgment and Order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kandi was affirmed.
2. The petitioner/complainant's case is that the petitioner being the complainant lodged a written complaint before the Inspector-in-Charge, Kandi P.S. on 23.05.2004 alleging inter alia that his grandmother namely Sushama Dey wife of late Bholanath Dey died on 23.08.2000. Sushama Dey during her lifetime owned and possessed 95 decimal of land. The accused Sagar Dey and Manmatha Dey grabbed the said property by impersonating Jogmaya Dasi as Sushama Dey and by obtaining the L.T.I of Jogmaya Dasi, procured a false deed. Ashoke Kumar Singha and Raikishor Sur were the witnesses to the said false deed. They all along stated that their signature was obtained on the promise that they would be given money in return. The defacto complainant could not enjoy his property due to such unlawful possession taken by the accuseds.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint Kandi Police Station Case No.92 of 2004 dated 23.05.2004 under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused persons including Manmotha Dey and Aloke Kumar Singha, for investigation. On completion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted in this case against the accused persons under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Cognizance was taken and charge framed for trial.
5. The learned Judicial Magistrate, at Kandi after going through the evidence on record, the arguments advanced by the learned advocates of the respective parties, was pleased to pass an order on 22.11.2017 acquitting the opposite parties from the said charges.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22.11.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal in the court of learned Additional Session Judge, Kandi which was registered as Criminal Appeal CIS Registration No.7 of 2018.
7. After hearing the learned advocates of the respective parties the learned Judge on 04.10.2018 was pleased to affirm the judgment and order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the learned Magistrate and dismissed the appeal.
8. Mr. Manas Kumar Das, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has submitted that the learned Judge did not apply his judicial mind while passing the impugned judgment and failed to appreciate the evidences adduced by the complainant and other witnesses. From their deposition allegation under Sections 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code was well established against the opposite parties.
9. That the donor Sushama Dey died on 23.08.2000 and the alleged deed was registered on 05.03.2001 before the ADSR, Kandi.
10. That otherwise the impugned judgment and order is bad, illegal and required to be set aside.
11. Mr. Pravash Bhattacharya learned counsel for the State has placed the case diary.
12. From the materials on record and the case diary the following facts are before this court:-
ii. Their grandmother Sushama Dey died on 23.08.2000.
iii. The accused persons allegedly grabbed 95 decimals of land which she owned and possessed by allegedly impersonating one Jogamaya Dasi as Sushama Dey by obtaining LTI of Jogamaya Dasi, procured a false deed. Hence, the criminal case.
iv. Both the trial and appellate court have dismissed the petitioner's case. v. One of the grounds in appeal is that the donor Sushama Dey died on 23.08.2000 and the alleged deed was registered on 05.03.2001 before the ADSR, Kandi.
vi. It is the contention of the petitioner that in spite of that the accused persons were acquitted of all charges, which is erroneous and thus not in accordance with law.
vii. The petitioner's contention is that the said deed is forged as it ha
The registration of a deed after the death of the executant does not, by itself, render it forged or provide sufficient grounds for acquitting the accused of all charges under Sections 420/468/471 of....
(1) Challenge to very execution of a document, is a challenge to its very DNA and any defect or illegality on execution, is congenital in nature.(2) Examining whether Registering Authority did someth....
(1) [By Hon'ble Justice M.R. Shah]]Title Declaratory Suit – When plaintiffs claimed title on the basis of two sale deeds, it was for plaintiffs to prove even execution of sale deeds – Defendants were....
A registered document carries a formidable presumption of validity under the Registration Act, and the burden of proving it to be a fraud or a 'sham' lies heavily upon the challenger, who must provid....
The Registrar's decision under the Registration Act is summary in nature and limited in operation, and the Registrar's jurisdiction is narrower compared to the plenary jurisdiction of the Civil Court....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration procedure mandated under the Registration Act was followed by the 2nd respondent, and the court emphasized the importance of ....
The registration of a document executed posthumously is valid if the registering officer follows the prescribed procedures, and procedural irregularities do not invalidate the registration.
The Sub Registrar's role is administrative and limited to ensuring compliance with statutory formalities, and he does not have the authority to adjudicate or evaluate the rights of parties to make a ....
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
