VASUDEVAN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTH ARCOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED 1 and 2 in P. R. C. 11 of 1973 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Cuddalore, have preferred this revision petition challenging the order dated 14-9-1973 passed by the learned Magistrate in Crl. M. P. No. 1135 of 1973, in the above case, concluding that the complaint given by the learned District Judge, South Arcot, Cuddalore under Section 476-A, Criminal Procedure Code, is perfectly right and not hit by Section 479-A (6), Criminal Procedure Code, and dismissing the said petition filed by the present petitioners.

(2.) TO appropriate the petition, I feel that a synopsis of the facts of the complaint, which led to the above petition, is necessary. One Smt. Sabiya Bibi, wife of one Mohamed Hanifa Sahib of Andikuppam village, Cuddalore Taluk, filed a Civil Suit in O. S. No. 766 of 1970 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore, against Vasudevan, the first petitioner herein, for the recovery of possession of the suit property with damages for use and occupation, on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 23-8-1969 executed in her favour by the first petitioner, The first petitioner was the only defendant in the said suit. He filed a written statement on 7-1-1971 resisting the claim of the plaintiff, contending that the plaintiff herself had executed an agreement dated 8-9-1969 in favour of the first petitioner to reconvey the said property. The said Sabiya Bibi, in her reply statement, denied such execution of the deed of reconveyance as alleged and contended that the said document was nothing but a rank forgery. The suit was posted for trial on 9-12-1971, on which date it was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, on the petition filed by the petitioner, the decree was set aside and the suit was restored to file on payment of costs. At the time of the trial of the said suit, the first petitioner filed an unregistered agreement for reconveyance of the suit properties, purported to have been executed by the plaintiff in his favour, while he was examined as D. W. 1, and marked it as Ex. B-l. The second petitioner (second accused), who is none other than the brother of the first petitioner, examined himself as D. W. 2 and deposed that he was the scribe of Ex. B-1 and that it was signed by the plaintiff in the suit. The learned District Munsif, while decreeing the suit in favour of the plantiff, by his judgment dated 206-1972, found that Ex. B-1 was a forged document brought into existence by the first petitioner with the help of the persons interested in him, in order to gain an undue advantage for himself. It may be noted here that the learned District Munsif who observed as above did not propose to take action against the two petitioners herein, nor is there any evidence to show as to whether the affected defendant, viz. , the first petitioner preferred any appeal against the said judgment. Then, it appears from the complaint that the said plaintiff Sabiya Bibi filed O. P. 100 of 1972 before the complainant (learned District Judge) praying for laying a complaint against the two accused herein under the provisions of Section 476-A, Criminal Procedure Code, for offences under Sections 463 and 471, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 195 (1) (c), Criminal P. C. Notices were ordered to be issued and duly served on them; but the petitioners did not appear before the Court. Thereupon, after hearing Sabiya Bibi, the plaintiff, and her Counsel and perusing the records, the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the document Ex, B-1 filed by the first petitioner in the suit suppored by the second petitioner in his evidence is a forged document, fabricated by these two petitioners for purposes of defeating the claims of the plaintiff and thus they both had used Ex. B1 as genuine in the proceedings of the said Civil Suit before the Court. Since he felt that it was just, necessary and expedient in the interests of justice as well as in the interests of administration of public justice, he laid the present complaint for offences under Sections 193, 465, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code before the District Magistrate (J), Cuddalore, who, after taking it on his file in P. R. C. 3 of 1973 for the above offences, transferred the same to the file of the Sub Magistrate, Cuddalore for disposal according to law. Hence, this complaint was taken on file by the learned Sub Magistrate in P. R. C. 11 of 1973.

(3.) THE petitioners filed a petition, raising preliminary objections, contending that as one of the offences mentioned in the complaint fell under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, the complaint should have been filed under Section 479-A, Criminal Procedure Code, and the proceedings now initiated by the complainant under Section 476-A, Criminal Procedure Code, could not be entertained. The learned Sub Magistrate, after elaborately discussing all the provisions of law pertaining to the subject and going through the authorities cited, dismissed the said petition. Hence this revision petition.