AYUB SYED HASAN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ayub the appellant in this case, has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Allahabad for an offence under Section 466/471 I. P. C. and has been sentenced to four year's R. I.

(2.) The prosecution allegations are that when he was standing trial in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 1955 in the court of the Second Temporary Sessions Judge of Allahabad for offences under Sections 147 and 307 and 325/149 I. P. C., he fabricated false alibi evidence in the shape of documents purporting to be certified copies obtain ed from the Copying Department of the Kanpur Collectorate to show that on 27-10-1954 he had appeared as a witness in a case described as State v. Faqirey under Section 9 of the Opium Act (P. S. Collectorganj) in the court of Sri Chhatrapal Singh, Deputy Collector. The learned Second Temporary Sessions Judge held that documents Exhts. A to E filed by Ayub as accused in support of his plea of alibi were forged and accordingly convicted him in Sessions Trial No. 35 of 1955. After the decision of that case an application under Section 476 Cr. P. C. was filed before the successor of the Second Temporary Sessions Judge, who held an inquiry and came to the conclusion that a prima facie case of fabrication of false evidence was made out. for which it was expedi ent in the interest of justice that Ayub should be prosecuted, and accordingly made a complaint asking for Ayub to be tried for an offence under Section 193 I. P. C. The Magistrate before whom the complaint came for decision, however, held that no case was made out under Section 193 but instead there was a case under Section 471 I. P. C. The accused was accordingly committed to the Court of Sessions and has been convicted on the latter charge.

(3.) Before coming to the merits of the case I have to consider two legal points that have been raised by learned counsel for the accused-appellant. The first is that since the complaint made by the Second Temporary Sessions Judge was in respect of an oifence under Section 193 I. P. C. the accused could not legally be convicted under Section 471 I. P. C.; while the second is that the Judge who made the complaint (Sri Chandra Prakash was not in the eye of law "successor-in-office" of the Judge before whom the offence is said to have been committed (Sessions Trial No. 35 of 1955 having been tried and decided by Sri Prem Prakash) and no court could take cognisance of that complaint in view of the provisions of Section 195 Cr. P. C.