SHRI S DEYAL MOKHTAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference made by the learned District Judge of Muzaffarpur regarding professional misconduct of which Shri S. Dayal, a Mokhtar practising in the criminal courts at Hajipur, was alleged to have been guilty. There was a case No. C1/156/356 of 1955 under Secs. 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of Mr. M. Hussain, Judicial Magistrate, 1st class, Hajipur. The complainant in the case was Charitar Rai and the accused were Bechan Rai and others. The learned Magistrate was not satisfied with the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution and accordingly acquitted the accused persons by his judgment dated the 22nd February 1956. In course of that judgment the learned Magistrate, however, observed that certain rent receipts filed on behalf of the complainant, Charitar Rai, by one Shyam Prasad, a witness for the prosecution, were forged. On the following day, i.e., 23rd February, 1956, accused Bechan Rai put in a petition before the learned Magistrate for filing a complaint against Shyam Prasad, Charitar Rai and others under Sections 193, 211 and 471, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, however, issued notice against Shyam Prasad to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted under the aforesaid sections for having given false evidence and having used forged documents as genuine.

(2.) THE petition of Bechan Rai, however, was rejected by the learned Magistrate after having considered the show cause filed on behalf of Shyam Prasad. Bechan Rai then went up in appeal against the order of the learned Magistrate to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur, who, by his order dated the 1st October, 1956, allowed the appeal and ordered a complaint to be filed against Shyam Prasad, Charitar and three others, who were witnesses in the case, against whom Bechan Rai moved the Magistrate for filing a complaint for having given false evidence. A complaint was accordingly filed against them and a case proceeded against them in the Court of Mr. P. Prasad, Munsif Magistrate, Hajipur. That Magistrate discovered, in course of the trial, that the rent receipts, which were the basis of the charge against the accused persons, were not on record. On examination of the records it appeared that a petition for withdrawal of the forged documents was filed by the complainant, Charitar Rai, endorsed by Shri S. Dayal, Mokhtar, which contained a further statement in regard to the documents having been received back from the office. The petition bore date "23 -2 -1956". There was no one, however, in the office of the learned Magistrate to say that the documents were returned. The only clerk posted in the office of the learned Magistrate was one Shri K. P. Sinha, who was the bench clerk of the Court and also incharge of the office. The fact, however, remains that the documents in question have not been traceable since then and it can be taken as established that the documents are not available for one reason or the other.

(3.) THE more important question, therefore, for consideration is whether Sri Dayal altered the date of the application from '27'to '23'which has been found against him by the Courts below. Learned counsel for the Mokhtear has urged that the Courts below were not right in drawing that inference. It appears, however, that there is no force in this contention in view of the fact that the alteration was admitted by Sri Dayal himself in course of his statement in the enquiry. At first he denied that he made the alteration, but when his attention was drawn to a previous petition filed by him making that statement, he admitted that the alteration was made by him to this extent only that originally the petition bore the date "22 -2 -1956', but it could not be filed on that date; it was actually filed on 23 -2 -1956 and for that reason he altered the figures '22'into '23'. To test whether there is any substance in this stand we ourselves looked carefully into the alteration both with regard to the date under the signature of Shri Dayal as also in the alteration of the date under the signature of Charitar Rai. It is plain from the document that it is '27'which has been altered into '23'and not '22'into '23'. We handed over the document to the learned counsel for Shri Dayal to satisfy himself whether we were right in our conclusion and he fairly conceded that it appeared that '7'was altered into '3'and not '2'into '3'. If 27 was altered into '23'which fact was denied by Shri Dayal, his complicity in getting back forged documents by resorting to the artifices by showing that the application was filed before the order was passed by the learned magistrate directing the documents not to be returned is certainly condemnable. His denial shows that he had an uneasy conscience in the matter and he knew full well that if he were a party to the alteration for the purpose of helping Charitar Rai, he would certainly be held liable for his action. In my opinion this circumstance in itself would be sufficient to show utter impropriety of the conduct of Shri Dayal. In that view of the matter it appears to me unnecessary to refer to the entry in the table of contents under sl. 9 that these rent receipts were not returned up to the time when the records were sent to the learned Sessions Judge for disposal of the appeal filed against the order of the learned Magistrate rejecting the petition for filing the complaint against Charitar and others. This is a matter which does not arise in the present proceeding against the Mukhtear because it apparently relates to the conduct of Sri K. P. Sinha, the bench clerk, although it must be stated that the finding recorded by the learned District Judge in the matter of the complicity of Sri K. P. Sinha also cannot be held to be unsound.