GAJJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OT MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Gajjan Singh, who appeals to this Court by special leave against his conviction under Ss. 471 and .174, Indian Penal Code and sentences in the aggregate of three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000, was convicted originally under Ss. 466 and 474, Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore. In an appeal by him the conviction under S. 466 was altered to one under S. 471 but the conviction under S. 474 and the sentences passed on him were maintained, by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

(2.) Gajjan Singh was the owner of truck No. MPF 5554 which was in the charge of Bhagat Singh his driver. On August 19, 1960 the truck was checked at Nasik because it was suspected to be overloaded. The truck was said to be plying under a temporary permit No. 3175 which was produced before the authorities but on inspection it was found that the permit which had been issued for a period 1-7-1960 to 31-7-1960 was altered to read 1-8-1960 to:31-8-1960. In other words, the figures denoting the month were altered from 7. to 8. Gajjan Singh and Bhagat Singh were prosecuted on diverse charges but Bhagat Singh was acquitted.

(3.) Only two points merit consideration in this appeal. The first is whether the trial at Indore was with jurisdiction. The permit was seized at Nasik, where it was produced before the authorities but it is obvious that the permit was issued at Indore for the purpose of plying the truck between Indore and out-stations, The truck in question had started from Indor and was on its return journey when it was checked. The permit, therefore, was altered for use between Indore and out-stations. It is not known where the alteration took place but as the permit was issued at Indore it is clear that the alteration was intended to cover its use even in Indore.When the truck left Indore in the month of August the permit must have been carried by the appellant or his driver to cover the journey to Nasik and back. Under S. 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has ensued. The appellant in the present case had a forged permit which couldbe used by him at any of the points between Indore and any out-station. He obviously intended using it when occasion demanded and thus he was guilty of an offence under S. 474, Indian Penal Code from the moment he had in his possession the forged permit, knowing that it was forged and intended to use it. As this offence was a continuing one it could be tried at Indore and the offence under S. 471 which was the desired consequence could also be tried at Indore in view of S. 179 above referred to.