PANCHANAN MAITY Vs. STATE WEST OF BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for revision of an order of conviction under Section 467, Penai Code. The petitioner was tried by a learned Judge, sitting' with a jury, upon a charge of forgery under the following circumstances: The Complainant Brahmamoyee Dasi, an old lady of about 80, is a resident of Contai. In addition to her homestead, she had 12 bighas and 15 cottas of land scattered over several 'mouzas'. One Pramatha Nath Banerjee was the lady's landlord in respect of her homestead. The landlord brought a suit for ejectment against her. The petitioner looked after that suit on the lady's behalf. In Kartick 1356 B. S. he suggested to the lady that she should execute an 'Ammukhtearnamah' in his favour, so that he could take necessary steps in connection with her defence in the said suit. The lady agreed, whereupon on or about 29th Falgun 1356 B. S., corresponding to 13-3-1950, the petitioner, who was then accompanied by three others, obtained the lady's thumb impression on a blank stamp paper as well as on a few blank cartridge papers, on the representation that the papers would be utilised for the purpose of a Power of Attorney. The petitioner took the papers away and thereafter they were caused to be written up as a 'kobala', purporting to convey certain of the lady's lands to Panchanan for a consideration. Later on the same day, the petitioner took the lady to the office of the Sub-Registrar. There the document was presented for registration and was duly registered. Two months later, the lady discovered that a fraud had been practised upon her. Upon enquiry she discovered that she had in fact registered a 'kobala', whereas her intention was to execute and register a Power of Attorney only. Thereafter a complaint was lodged not only against the petitioner but also against other persons, including one Prafulla Kumar Das who admittedly was the scribe of the document.

(2.) The petitioner along with Prafulla was twice tried. His first conviction upon a charge of forgery was set aside by this Court, with a direction for his retrial. At the first trial he was sentenced to six years' rigorous imprisonment. On his second trial the petitioner was again convicted of forgery. This time he was sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The present application arises out of his conviction at the second trial. The other accused persons who were originally tried with him as well as Prafulla who was the petitioner's co-accused at the last trial were acquitted.

(3.) The alleged forgery is said to have taken place on or about 13-3-1950. Three years have thus elapsed since the alleged offence was committed.