BAJIRAO YESHWANTRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Bajirao and his. father Yeshwantrao were prosecuted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Kishan on the night of the 28th February 1951. at Linga, Chhindwara tahsil; and during the trial charges under Sections 468 and 474 'ibid' were added against the appellant. Yeshwantrao and he were both acquitted under Section 302, but the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, convicted and sentenced the appellant to undergo two terms, each of 4 years rigorous imprisonment, and to pay two fines, each of Rs. 1,000/-, under Sections 468 and 474. In appeal, I held that the addition of the charges during the trial might have been prejudicial to the appellant and quashed the convictions and sentences. The State Government, Madhya Pradesh, thereafter moved the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, to file a complaint against the appellant under sections 468 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code. The objections raised by the appellant were overruled and the Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara, directed a complaint to be filed against him. under those sections in a competent Court. The appellant has now come up in appeal against that order.

(2.) THE case against him was, briefly stated, to the effect that the appellant being covetous of Kishan's valuable field, forged with the help of others a sale deed (articles K-1 to K-4), dated. the 25th December 1950, purporting to have been executed by Kishan, had it registered and retained it. Kishan heard a rumour of this and made inquiries from the appellant who assured him that there was no truth in the rumour. The appellant then being apprehensive that the matter would eventually come to light killed Kishan and threw his body into a river.

(3.) THE appellant contended before the learned Additional Sessions Judge that (1) he had no jurisdiction to make a complaint under Sections. 468 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code as the provisions of Sections 195 and 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply to the case and (ii) he should not file the complaint as it was not expedient and desirable to prosecute the appellant. These contentions were repelled by the learned. Additional Sessions Judge on the grounds that the words and figures "of any offence described. in Section. 463" in Section 195 (1) (c) refer to all offences committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a trial and that the prosecution was expedient and desirable in the interests of the deceased Kishan's minor sons who might be put to serious loss if the appellant hereinafter used the document in question in support of his claim to the field. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also pointed out that, even if he had no jurisdiction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he was entitled to file a complaint, as a criminal Court can be moved by any person except in respect of the offences referred to in Sections 198 and 199 'ibid'.