MULCHAND BADER Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition Under Section 215 read with Section 561 A, Criminal P. C. Petitioner Mulchand Bader has prayed for the quashing of his commitment which has been ordered by Shri S. N. Sen, Magistrate, 1st Class, Tezpur by his order dated 31 -12 -1954. He has been committed to be tried for two offences namely (1) Under Section 467, Penal Code, for forging a sale deed Ex. II with intent to defraud the complainant Jainal Abedian as well as the S. D. C. at Tezpur and with intent to support his claim for a mutation in case No. 413 of 1950 -51 and (2) Under Section 471, Penal Code, for fraudulently using as genuine the sale deed Ex. II which he knew or had reason to believe at the time he used it to be a forged document on or about 10 -7 -1951.

(2.) THE commitment came to be ordered under the following circumstances. The land of which mutation was sought is situate in the town of Tezpur. It is comprised in patta No. 72 which has two dag Nos. 1617 and 1869. Badhu Sing was the original owner of this patta land. He transferred both the dags of the patta by two registered sale deeds. Dag No. 1617 was conveyed to the petitioner's firm known as Rawatmal Mulchand. The other dag No. 1869 was conveyed to Rajendra minor son of Mulchand. The two sale deeds were executed on the same day. They were also registered on the date of 4 execution in Calcutta. Mulchand, the petitioner applied for a mutation of dag No. 1617 in the court of S. D. C. on 10 -7 -1951 on the basis of Ex. II. The document as presented purported to convey dag No. 1617.

(3.) IN regard to the first ingredient of the offence he found clearly that there was alteration in a valuable security. On the point whether the accused himself made it, he stated that there was no direct evidence though a presumption on that point against the accused was possible. On the question whether the alteration was made dishonestly, he found no evidence against the accused. On the further question whether the alteration was made fraudulently or with intent to defraud, he referred to the decision reported in 5 All 217 (A), and seemed to be doubtful.