MOHAMMAD UMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these criminal revisions are inter-connected. The nature of offences are the same, so also the basic facts are also identical.

(2.) THE petitioner was prosecuted for offences under Section 468 and 471 I. P. C. as also Section 9 of Central Excise Act, 1944. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was a licensee for carrying business in tobacco from 1957 to 1962. On 25. 11. 1958, he obtained another licence in the assumed name of Mohammad Yusuf and got the same renewed by application dated 4. 12. 1959, eventually cancelled by another application dated 11. 7. 1960. The petitioner issued sale notes as and when required in the name of Mohammad Yusuf, thereby knowingly forged the document and used the same for avoiding payment of excise duties. These are broad facts on which charges under Sections 458 and 471 I. P. C. and also Section 9 of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were framed against the petitioner, who pleaded not guilty, but he was convicted by the trial court and his appeal before the Sessions Judge, Indore also failed. Now, he has come in revision before this court. Except for the dates of issuance of sale notes, the prosecution case remains unchanged in its essence. The witnesses are also the same. The defence is also the same. It is for this reason that all these revision petitions are being decided by a common order.

(3.) THE prosecution evidence consists of a retired Superintendent of Central Excise, Motiram Ahuja (P. W. I), another Excise Superintendent Narayan Patidar (P. W. 2 ). Apart from this, there is the evidence of the handwriting expert Chandrashekhar (P. W. 4 ).