RAM DAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Section 476-B of the Criminal Procedure Code against the filing of a complaint under a 195 (c), Criminal Procedure Code by the Registrar on behalf of this Court in compliance of the order of the Chief Justice dated the 6th of April, 1953 on a complaint filed on behalf of Parduman Das on the 28th of September, 1951 complaining that Ram Das appellant had committed forgery in connection with two entries in the Kachchi Rokar Bahi of Parduman Das for the year Sambat 2005.

(2.) A criminal case under Sections 408 and 477-A, I. P. C. was instituted against Ram Das by Ram Shanker Lal, manager and mukhtar-i-am of Parduman Das, in February, 1949. That case had nothing to do with the aforesaid forged entries. Ram Das was convicted by the trial court of those offences but was acquitted by the Sessions Judge on appeal on the 17th of April, 1951. On the 18th of May, 1951 Ram Shanker Lal filed a criminal revision No. 747 of 1951 in this Court against the acquittal of Ram Das. This criminal revision was allowed and a retrial was ordered. On re-trial Ram Das was again acquitted.

(3.) On the 22nd of May, 1951, a few days after the filing of the criminal revision, Parduman Das instituted original suit No. 289 of 1951 against Ram Das in the court of the Munsif of Banaras for the recovery of Rs. 2,449/-. The claim Included an amount of Rs. 1,999/- for prin- cipal and Rs. 450/- for interest. These specifications were not clearly mentioned in the plain which mentioned that Ram Das had taken a loan of Rs. 2,500/- on Jeth Badi 10 Sambat 2005, that he had paid Rs. 501/- and that the interest on the loan up to the date of the institution of suit worked to Rs. 450/- and that thus the sum sued stood due from him. Ram Das in his defence alleged that he had taken a loan of Rs. 2,501/- and that he had paid up the entire amount by a payment of Rs. 5017-a few months later, and by a deposit of Rs. 2,0007-on Jeth Badi 2 Sambat 2005 with the plaintiff. He further mentioned that the alleged payments were noted in the Bahis of the plaintiff.