SANTOSH KUMAR PADHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above two revisions having arisen out of a common appellate judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jeypore are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) One Bighnaraj Tripathy was the Sharistadar and Santosh Kumar Padhy, a Clerk and one Lokanath Mohanty Process Server in the office of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Umarkote in Koraput district. All of them faced their trial under Ss. 465, 468, 471 and 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'Penal Code'). The Subordinate Judge-cum-Magistrate, First Class, Jeypore by his judgment dated 17-1-86 acquitted accused Bighnaraj Tripathy but convicted accused Santosh Kumar Padhy under Ss. 465/468/471 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under S. 471 of the Penal Code. Both the sentences were to run concurrenly. The trial Court, however, did not award any separate sentence for his conviction under S. 465 of the Penal Code. Accused Lokanath Mohanty was sentenced to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment ment for his conviction under S. 471 of the Penal Code. On an appeal being preferred by both the convicts separately the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the judgment of the lower Court and thus dismissed both the appeals. Hence the present revisions before this Court.

(3.) Prosecution case is, some time during first week of November, 1982 the Sheristadar asked accused Santosh Kumar Padhy to write out some portions of the accused summons in some forest cases of the year 1973-74 which had already been disposed of and told him that he (Tripathy) would affix the court seal and obtain the signature of the Magistrate on the summons. Accused Santosh Kumar Padhy having done this, all the three accused persons proceeded to village Gandhinagar with sixty-three forged summons and demanded Rs.300/- from each accused with a promise to see that the cases were dropped. They gave out a threat that unless they were paid, the persons would be liable for convictions. The villagers for the moment entertained doubt about the genuineness of the summons and contracted their Advocate at Umarkote and ultimately it was found that the Magistrate's signatures were forged. This was reported to the Magistrate on 18-11-82. The Magistrate thereafter enquired into the matter and was satisfied that in fact his signatures were forged and that the summons did not relate to cases noted thereon as the cases had been disposed of long since and further detailed address of the parties were not written on the summons. Ultimately on trial accused Santosh Kumar Padhy and accused Lokanath Mohanty were found guilty as already mentioned above. All the accused persons were however acquitted of the charges for the offence under S. 420/34 of the Penal Code.