STATE Vs. INDER SEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge with a recommendation that the commitment of the opposite parties for the offences of Section 82 (a) and (b) of the Indian Registration Act be quashed.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that Index-sen, opposite party No. 1, son of Gopal Das, resident of Mohalla Khannu, Police Station Qila, district Bareilly approached Sham Lal, owner of a house, and wanted it on rent saying that he was Ishwar Singh, son of Sunder Singh, resident of Mohalla Choti Bamanpuri and executed a rent-note in his favour on 23-4-1956. He signed the rent-note as Ishwar Singh and opposite party No. 2, Pradesh Chand, signed it as a witness. On the following day i.e. 24-4-1956 Indersen produced the rent-note before a Sub-Registrar and asked him to register it. The Sub-Registrar took down his statement in which he said that he was Ishwar Singh, son of Sunder Singh, resident of Mohalla Choti Bamanpuri, and Prakash Chand and the other opposite party, Mohd. Khan, identified Indersen as Ishwar Singh before the Sub-Registrar. The house was searched by a Sub-Inspector of police and contraband opium was recovered from it. In the course of the investigation, he found that it was taken on rent by Indersen personating as Ishwar Singh. So he wrote to the Sub-Registrar stating that Indersen impersonating as Ishwar Singh, son of Sunder Singh, resident of' Mohalla Choti Bamanpuri got the rent-note registered in his favour on 24-4-1956 and asking for sanction for his prosecution under Section 82 (c) of the Registration Act. He wrote another letter to the Sub-Registrar stating that Indersen by impersonating as Ishwar Singh got the rent-note registered in his favour, that Mohd. Khan and Prakash Chand abetted the offence and requested his permission for their prosecution under Section 82 (d) of the Registration Act. On both the letters, the Sub-Registrar wrote "permitted". Thereupon the Sub-Inspector prosecuted the opposite parties,

(3.) The Magistrate framed a charge against Indersen for the offence of Section 82 (a) and a charge against the opposite parties 2 and 3 for the offence of Section 82 (d) and committed them for trial to the sessions court.