SHIV SHANKAR PRASAD MAHASETH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. revision is directed against the Judgment of the appellate court passed by Shri Dharnidhar Jha, 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Saharsa on 30th July, 1998 in Cr. Appeal no. 4 of 1995 by which he confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate; Saharsa, in G.R. Case No. 778 of! 1987/Tr. No. 368/95. The sole revisionist was convicted under section 474 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 21/2 years by the court of the S.D.J.M. Saharsa and this order of conviction and sentence was confirmed in the appellate court.

(2.) THE relevant facts are that the sole appellant was prosecuted for forging a Judgment passed in F.A.No. 429 and 430 of 1962 and this allegedly forged Judgment filed in a Survey Appeal No. 50/86 pending before the Charge Officer - cum -Town Survey Superintendent, where there was an appeal against the inferior Survey Officer. On the basis of this forged Judgment of the High Court, the revisionist allegedly obtained a favourable Judgment. There was an information given to the police by O.P.no. 2 o! this revision, Surendra Mahaseth, son of Lux - man Mahaseth, who was the respondent in appeal for Survey Superintendent on the basis of this information to the police the concerned G.R.Case was instituted wherein after trial the revisionist was con - vicled and sentenced.

(3.) IN the prosecution case, launched against the revisionist, it was alleged that he obtained certified copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon ble High Court, Patna, from Darbhanga Judship and got certain words and lines in the orignal Judgment altered in order to benefit himself and on the basis of this forged judgment obtained a favourable order from the survey appellate court. During course of the trial before the S.D.J.M. this alleged forged judgment (Ext.2) was produced and the original Judgment (Exts. 5 and 7) obtained from the High Court by the opposite party of this revision, Surendra Mahaseth, were also filed. The trial court compared the allegedly forged copy of the Judgment and the copy of the original Judgment, came to the conclusion that the revisionist had got inserted the name of Bhajan Lai Pugalia and Lilawati Devi instead of others wherever these words occurred in the original Judgment and on the basis of these alterations claimed that Bhajan Lai Pugalia was party to the suit and he obtained decree in his favour, so far the property exclusively by Lilawati and Narendra Mahaseth was concerned. i have used the alterations allegedly done only in a summary way whereas actually the Judgment of the court of the S.D.J.M. and the same of the appellate court from the some more alterations and interpolation amounting to forgery.