RAMA SHANKAR LAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by three appellants with special leave from the judgment of the Allahabad High court dated 5/09/1967. Originally five persons Rama Shanker Lal, Sukh Bhanjan Lal, Smt. Krishna devi, Harkho and Radha Krishna were jointly tried in the court of the second Assistant Sessions Judge, Azadagarh. Rama Shanker Lal and Sukh bhanjan Lal were charged under S. 120-B (1) , 420, 468 and 471, indian penal code; Smt. Krishna Devi under S. 420 and 471 read with Section 120-B (1) , Indian penal code and Harkho and Radha Krishna under S. 466,and 120-B (1) , 1. P. C. The broad allegations giving rise to this case may be stated.

(2.) Civil litigation had been going on for a long time between Brij Lal mathur, father of Vishnu Pad Mathur (P. W. 1) and his distant collateral bhimal Lal Mathur, father of Rama Shankar Lal and Sukh Bhanjan Lal relating to a grove and some agricultural land. On the death of Brij Lal mathur in the year 1959 his son Vishnu Pad Mathur, who is stated to be a law graduate, desired to patch up the differences with his collateral and settle the dispute out of court. According to the prosecution version a panchayat was called and it was settled that Vishnu Pad Mathur should transfer ten biswas of land to Smt. Krishna Devi, wife of Rama Shankar Lal in consideration of which Bhimal Lal Mathur would withdraw his appeal in the court of the District Judge, giving up his claim in respect of plot no. 211. But on behalf of the appellant in this court this settlement is disputed. The fact, however, remains that a sale deed was admittedly executed transferring some land in favour of Krishna Devi, wife of Rama shankar Lal. The area purported to have been sold is the question round which the controversy centres and it is this question which is of vital importance in the present case. The said sale deed was scribed by ramdhari,p. W. 7/11/1959. In this document, according to the prosecution, a plot measuring 10 biswas was first entered as the subjectmatter of the sale but on Sukh Bhanjan Lal's refusal to take that plot and his demand for a different plot having the same area, the number of the previous plot in the deed was encircled and a note appended that the said plot was to be excluded from the sale deed. Two other plots bearing Nos. 288 and 303/1 measuring 252 links and 28 links respectively constituting a total area of 10 biswas were entered in the sale deed as the property which was being transferred by Vishnu Pad Mathur in favour of the vendee. Sukh Bhanjan Lal Mathur and Rama Shankar Lal purported to act for smt. Krishna Devi, vendee, and the above insertion was made in the sale deed both with their consent and with that of Vishnu Pad Mathur. Pursuant to this settlement on 21/12/1959, Bhimal Lal filed the compromise deed in the Civil and on the same date Vishnu Pad Mathur presented the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar, Sagari, for registration. Radha Krishna, accused, was the Sub-Registrar at that time and Harkhu was employed as peon in that office. In June, 1960, when one of the plots belonging to Vishnu Pad Mathur was being ploughed on behalf of the vendee, he made enquiries and learnt that this plot had also been got mutated in the name of Smt. Krishna Devi pursuant to the above sale deed. On securing a copy of the sale deed he found that the copy purported to convey more area to Smt. Krishna Devi by sale than was entered in the sale deed. This was done by omitting the circle round the number encircled portion of the plot objected to by Sukh Bhanjan Lal and by deleting the note which excluded that number from the property which was transferred thereby. Applications were, therefore, made by Vishnu Pad Mathur to the district Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh and to the inspector General of Registration complaining about the collusion between the vendee and the registration staff of Sagari to tamper with the sale deed.

(3.) This broadly stated is the prosecution case. The learned Assistant sessions Judge, on a consideration of the evidence, came to the conclusion that there was no proof of forgery of the original sale deed which, it may be pointed out, was not produced in the case. On this finding all the accused were acquitted.