LALTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated June 3, 1966 dismissing the Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 410 and 413 of 1964.

(2.) The appellant, Lalta filed a money suit No. 54 of 1955 in the Court for Civil Judge, Gonda against Swami Nath on the basis of a pronote and receipt dated July 1, 1952 on the allegation that Swami Nath had taken a loan of Rs. 250 from him and executed a promissory note and a receipt in lieu thereof. Swami Nath filed a written statement in that suit denying to have taken any loan or to have executed any pronote and receipt in favour of Lalta. It appears that prior to the institution of this suit Swami Nath had filed a complaint on January 24, 1955 against Lalta and others alleging that they had forcibly taken his thumb impressions on a number of blank forms of pronotes and receipts. The case arising out of the Criminal complaint came to be heard by a Magistrate Second Class who by his judgment dated May 31, 1956 acquitted Lalta and the other persons complained against. The Criminal case against Swami Nath proceeded on the charges framed under Sections 342 and 384, Indian Penal Code. In the Civil Suit which was filed by Lalta, the defendant Swami Nath moved an application for a report being called from the Superintendent, Security Press, Nasik regarding the year of the revenue stamps affixed on the pronote and the receipt. The matter was accordingly referred to the Superintendent, Security Press, Nasik and the report received was that the stamps in question had been printed on December 21, 1953 and were issued for the first time on January 16 1954 to the Treasury. Subsequent to the receipt of the report Lalta did not put in appearance and the suit was dismissed for default on June 1, 1956. The Civil Judge was moved for filing a complaint against the appellants for committing forgery. The Civil Judge Gonda actually filed a complaint on November 9, 1956 against Lalta for offences under Sections 193, 194, 209, 465, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code and against Tribeni and Ram Bharosey for an offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. The complaint was enquired into by a First Class Magistrate who committed the appellants to the Court of Session. By his judgment dated November 27, 1963, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gonda convicted Tribeni and Ram Bharosey under Section 467 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to 3 year rigorous imprisonment. He found Lalta guilt under Section 467, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 3 year rigorous imprisonment. Lalta was also convicted under Sec. 471, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment. He was also found guilty under Section 193, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The appellants took the matter in appeal to the Sessions Judge, Gonda who by his order dated October 17, 1964 set aside the conviction of Lalta under Section 193, Indian Penal Code but maintained the conviction of the appellants under the other sections. Tribeni Lalta and Ram Bharosey filed Revision Applications before the Allahabad High Court which by its order dated June 3, 1966 affirmed the order of the Sessions Judge, Gonda and dismissed the Revision Applications.

(3.) In support of this appeal Mr. Garg put forward the argument that in view of the fact that Swami Nath's complaint had been dismissed by the Second Class Magistrate on May 31, 1956, the prosecution case with regard to the act of forgery must fail and the conviction of Lalta under Sections 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code was not sustainable. It was also pointed out that the charge of abetment against Ram Bharosey and Tribeni under Section 467 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code and Section 471 read with Section 109, Indian Penal Code must fail for the same reason. In our opinion, the argument put forward on behalf of the appellants is well founded and must be accepted as correct.