AKLOO PRASAD Vs. NANDAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, according to the allegations against him, filed a plaint in the name of his father, Ramji Sao, by forging his signature on the Vakalatnama as also on the plaint. That plaint was registered and numbered as Title Suit 1 of 1956, Ultimately, the suit was withdrawn on 11-5-1957 but the opposite party who was the defendant in the suit filed an application for prosecution of the petitioner for committing forgery on the plaint as also on the vakalatnama. This application was rejected by the Court of first instance, but on appeal under Section 476-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellate Court has directed the complaint to be filed against the petitioner for forgery. Two points have been urged before me in support of this application by Mr. Prem Lall. His first submission is that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case the petitioner had not committed an offence of forgery. For this, he placed reliance upon Aparti Charan Ray v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Pat 271. His. second submission is that since the petitioner was not a party to the suit which had been filed in the name of Ramji Sao, no complaint can be lodged against him for forgery by the Court. For this, he placed reliance upon Mathur v. Pitambar, ILR 24 Pat 174: (AIR 1945 Pat 362). In m y opinion, the second contention has got to prevail, and, therefore, I need not express my opinion on the first question. Mr. B.P. Sinha appearing for the opposite party tried to submit that the petitioner not only forged the signature of Ramji Sao, but also signed the false verification on the plaint and, therefore, he is guilty under Section 193 of the Penal Code, which is an offence covered by Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and in that view of the matter the Court is competent to file a complaint as against him, even though he was not a parry to the suit. I am not prepared to accept this contention, and for two reasons, firstly, the learned District Judge has not held that the petitioner prima facie has committed an offence under Section 193 of the Penal Code and has not directed the filing of the complaint against him for his prosecution under that charge. Secondly, in my opinion, the petitioner did not sign the verification clause as his own statement. He signed it in the name of Ramji Sao. That being so, the primary offence, if at all, which was committed was one of forgery.

(2.) IN the result, I allow this application in revision, set aside the order of the learned District Judge directing filing of complaint against the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.