CALCUTTA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, dated 16th July, 1973, whereby the present appellant, Calcutta Singh, was convicted Under Section 467, read with Section 114, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, or in default of payment of fine to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. He was, however, acquitted of the charge Under Section 471, IPC His brother, Jawala Singh, accused, was acquitted of the charge for both the offences Under Sections 467 and 471, IPC

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that the present appellant, Calcutta Singh, who is the real brother of the wife of Bachan Singh complainant, sold truck No. PNL. 3676 to the complainant and the same was transferred in the latter's name on 1st July, 1964. However, on account of mutual confidence and relationship, the appellant was allowed to manage and ply the truck thereafter as agent of Bachan Singh. In 1965, during the Indo-Pak conflict, this truck was requisitioned by the Army. The appellant was authorised to recover the amount in respect of this truck on behalf of Bachan Singh. However, the amount collected by the appellant from the Military Authorities from time to time was not paid to Bachan Singh, nor was any account submitted despite repeated demands. Ultimately Bachan Singh filed a suit for rendition of accounts against the appellant. In his written statement the appellant set up a false plea that the truck In question had been sold by Bachan Singh to the appellant's son, Malkiat Singh (who died during the trial of this ease) and his brother, Jawala Singh, accused-acquitted for Rs. 22,000/ -. This false plea of the appellant aroused the suspicion of Bachan Singh complainant who started making enquiries in the matter, as a result of which he came to know sometime in October, 1969 that the appellant, his son, Malkiat Singh, and his brother Jawala Singh accused-acquitted had forged a fictitious affidavit at Samrala on 22nd April, 1968 purporting to be sworn by Bachan Singh complainant, which was got attested from an Oath Commissioner at Samrala. The said affidavit was attested on the basis of false identification of the deponent as Bachan Singh by the present appellant. This false affidavit was made the basis for getting the truck owned by Bachan Singh transferred in favour of Malkiat Singh and Jawala Singh (accused-acquitted) by producing the same in the office of the Licensing Authority, Mansa (Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Mansa ). In fact Bachan Singh complainant had never presented any such affidavit for attestation by any Oath Commissioner, nor had he sold the truck in question to any persoa Consequently a complaint was filed in the Court of Shri Laljit Singh Chatha, Magistrate 1st Class, Samrala, against Jawala Singh (accused-acquitted) for offences Under Sections 471, 419 465 and 467. read with Section 109, IPC and against the present appellant for offences Under Sections 418, 419, 465, 467 and 471, read with Section 409, IPC After preliminary enquiry, both the accused were summoned Under Sections 467, 465 and 471, IPC They were committed to the Court of Session to stand their trial for these offences, by the order of the committing Court, dated 14th December 1972. The prosecution evidence comprised of Mastan Singh (P. W. 1), Surjan Singh (P. W. 2), Atma Singh (P. W. 3), Baldev Singh Dhmdsa (P. W. 4), Surat Ram (P. W. 5), Beant Singh (P. W. 6), Bachan Singh complainant (P. W. 7) and Gian Parkash Sharma, Handwriting and Finger-print Expert (P. W. 8 ).

(3.) IN his- statement Under Section 342. Cr. PC the appellant, though admitted his relationship with Bachan Singh complainant, denied the main allegations of the prosecution against him. It was stated by him that Bachan Singh had only l/4th share in the truck in question, while 3/4th share was of the appellant and his brother Jawala Singh (accused-acquitted), that after this truck had been plied by the appellant for 2 years, its registration was transferred in favour of Bachan Singh complainant, who plied it for 2 years and then the truck was transferred in the name of Bachan Singh's father's sister's son, known, as Bachan Singh, who plied it for one year but did not pay any amount out of the income either to Bachan Singh complainant or to the appellant or Jawala Singh accused-acquitted. Requisition of the truck by the Military authorities was admitted, but it was denied that the appellant received any amount from the Army authorities. The institution of the uit by Bachan Singh complainant against him for rendition of accounts was also admitted as well as the written statement (certified copy Exhibit P. B.) filed by the appellant in that case. The appellant also admitted his signature marked 'dj on the back of the affidavit marked 'y\ purporting to have been executed by Bachan Singh complainant, under the endorsement of identification and attestation, but according to bim he had affixed his signature at the instance of Bachan Singh complainant who had already affixed his thumb-mark before the appellant put his signature. Mohinder Singh D. W. I was examined in defence.