RAM KHELAWAN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Full Bench has been constituted to consider the question of bar on jurisdiction of the Courts as it prescribed under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal procedure. However, since the entire case has also been referred to the Full Bench on the ground that the revision is very old and the proceedings in the trial Court are held up, it would be proper to set out the facts of the case in the beginning.

(2.) One Smt. Sugia lodged a report against Ram Khelawan, Katwaru, Sita Ram and Chhote Lal on 4-6-1978 at police Station-Cantt., Varanasi alleging there in that on 23-2-1978 Ram Khelawan accused set up some other woman by asking her to impersonate Sugia and to get a fictitious sale deed executed in the name of Sugia. The report said that accused Katwaru and Sita Ram identified the impersonator as Sugia and accused Sita Ram had joined these persons and had conspired to get the said fictitious sale deed executed. After the First Information Report was lodged the case was investigated and charge sheet was filed under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code on 29-5-1979. After being summoned the accused appeared, their statements were recorded whereafter charges under Sections 467 read with Sections 109 and 419, Indian Penal Code were framed against them. The accused denied the charge. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Smt. Sugia, P.W. 2 Sundar Singh, P.W. 3 Ram Raj, P.W. 4 Abdul Rahman and P.W. 5 Nand Kumar Sharma. When evidence of the prosecution was on the verge of being closed, on 9-12-1983, an application was moved on behalf of the accused persons pleadings that their prosecution was barred under Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. It was prayed that the accused be accordingly discharged.

(3.) On the said plea being taken the Chief Judicial Magistrate, by an order dated 2-5-1984, directed that since the alleged sale deed was not on the record, it was necessary to get the same filed or summoned. There was no objection from the side of the accused. Accordingly on 2-5-1984 the said Court summoned the record of Case No. 67 of 1981 Ram Khelawan v. Sugia from the consolidation Courts. A perusal of the record of the consolidation Court revealed that the alleged sale deed purported to have been executed by Smt. Sugia on 23-2-1978 was not on the record. The Court took exception to this fact that when on 2-5-1984 order for summoning the record of consolidation Court was passed in presence of counsel for the accused it was not disclosed that the said sale deed was not on the record of consolidation Courts or that the sale deed had been lost. However after summoning of the record of consolidation Court it was asserted by counsel for the accused that from the list of papers purported to be filed on 10-5-1978 it would be clear that the said sale deed had been filed before the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Varanasi (East) on 10-5-1978. The record further revealed that on 18-5-1978 an application was made that the sale deed be returned and after the Court permitted the sale deed to be taken back, on 20-6-1978 the said sale-deed had been taken back.