SEKENDAR SHEIKH Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first appellant - Sekander Sheikh - was charged in a trial held before the Additional Sessions Judge, Murshidabad, in the State of West Bengal, for the offences of forging a valuable security punishable under s. 467 I.P. Code and of falsely personating another in such assumed character and presenting a document for registration punishable under s. 82(c) of Indian Registration Act. The second appellant - Hasibuddin Sheikh - was charged with abetment of these offences. The trial for the offences of forging a valuable security and abetment thereof was held by the Sessions Judge sitting with a jury and for the offences under the Registration Act without a Jury. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty by a majority of 4 to 3 against the appellants for the offences of forging a valuable security and abetment thereof, but the Judge did not accept the verdict and made a reference under s. 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the High Court of Calcutta, because in his view there was absolutely no reliable evidence against the two appellants in respect of the offences of forging a valuable security and that it was in the interests of justice to refer the case to the High Court. The Sessions Judge acquitted the two appellants of offences under the Indian Registration Act. The High Court declined to accept the reference and convicted the two appellants respectively of the offences punishable under s. 467 and s. 467 read with s. 109 of the Penal Code, and sentenced each appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. With certificate of fitness granted by the High Court under Art. 134(1)(c) the appellants have appealed to this Court.

(2.) The charges against the first appellant were -

(3.) The second appellant was charged with charged with abetting the first appellant in the commission of the two offences by identifying the first appellant as Kaimuddin Sheikh. At the trial the prosecution examined one Swarana Kumar Dey who testified that he had engrossed the Heba-nama in favour of Ali Hossain which was executed by the first appellant purporting to do so as Kaimuddin Sheikh, that the first appellant had impressed his thumb mark on the document before him in token of execution of the Heba-nama that the first appellant had represented himself to be Kaimuddin Sheikh, and that the executant of the document was identified before him as Kaimuddin Sheikh by the second appellant Hasibuddin Sheikh. Kaimuddin Sheikh testified that he had not executed any Heba-nama in favour of Ali Hossain and that he had not impressed his thumb-mark on any document in the presence of Swarana Kumar Dey. A certified copy of the Heba-name was shown to the witness and he denied having executed and presented the original thereof before the Sub-Registrar. Evidence was also tendered that the thumb impressions of the two appellants were taken by the investigating officer in the presence of a Magistrate and those specimen thumb impressions were compared with the thumb impressions in the register at the sub-registry at Berhampore by a hand-writing expert and that the thumb impressions of the first appellant tallied with the thumb impressions in the said register and not with the thumb impressions of Kaimuddin Sheikh. In the view of the High Court, this evidence was sufficient to establish against the two appellants the offences of forging a valuable security and abetment thereof.