LAWS(PAT)-1964-9-19

SATYA NARAIN MISHRA Vs. STATE

Decided On September 14, 1964
SATYA NARAIN MISHRA Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Ranchi under Sections 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, for having forged a number of documents between the 29th October, 1959 and the 1st week of May, 1960, and for having used as genuine certain documents, which he then knew or had reasons to believe to be forged documents, on or about the first week of May, 1980. On trial, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 466 on the ground, that the prosecution has failed to prove that he had himself forged the documents in question. The appellant has, however, been convicted under Section 471 for having fraudulently used as genuine these documents. He has been sentenced to undergo six years' rigorous imprisonment and he has also been fined to the extent of Rs. 2000. It has been ordered that in default of payment of fine, the appellant must undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The facts are as follows: On the 20th June, 1960, Sri A. Rama Murthy (P. W. 12), an Administrative Officer of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Limited, Ranchi, sent a written report to the officer-in-charge of Kotwali Police station, Ranchi, milking the following allegations: It was stated in that report that the appellant had been working as caretaker mm security officer of the Corporation since the 20th October, 1959. He had filed an application for appointment, stating that (a) he had passed the Intermediate Examination from the U. P. Board in Second Division, (b) he was a Viceroy's Commissioned Officer in the Army, (c) he was released from the Army on account of demobilisation, and (d) he had served in the U. P. Police Battalion as an Inspector of Police and he was discharged with exemplary character from the service due to reduction in the Police force. On the basis of this information supplied, the appellant had been appointed to the post of Caretaker cum Security Officer. After he had joined, he was asked to produce the discharge certificates from the Army and the U. P. Police Battalion for verification. At first the appellant had stated that these certificates had been lost, but in order to complete his service book, he was again asked to produce the necessary certificates. Thereafter, the appellant had produced a number of documents, mentioned in the written report (These documents have been marked during the trial as Exhibits I(a), I(b), I(c) and I(d). Another document has been brought on the record as Exhibit I, which was not mentioned in paragraph 2 of the written report). It was further mentioned in the report, that on enquiry, it had been found that the appellant had furnished fabricated documents, and, therefore, he was guilty of various offences under the law. It was requested that a case may be commenced against the appellant. On this report, a formal first information report was drawn up by Gopinath Khare (P. W. 11), who was then a junior Sub-Inspector of Police at the police station. Investigation was taken up by this officer immediately and he went to the residence of the appellant and arrested him. On the 21st June, 1960, P. W. 11 went to the office of the Administrative Officer of the Corporation, where certain papers were handed over to him by P. W. 12 and a seizure list was prepared. After completing investigation, chargesheet was submitted on the 1st October, 1960, by P. W. 11. The prosecution case given by P. W. 12 is substantially to the same effect. Only a few more details have been mentioned as follows. According to this witness, he had received an application for appointment, submitted by the appellant, which has been marked as Exhibit A, dated the 7th September, 1959. This application had passed through the official channel, and ultimately, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the appellant had been appointed on the order of the Chairman of the Corporation. After the appellant had joined the post, mentioned above, on the 20th October, 1959, he was asked to produce the papers mentioned by him in his application. After the appellant had been asked to file copies of his lost certificates, P.W. 12 had directed the Assistant Administrative Officer, A.K. Sengupta (P.W. 1), to prepare the appellant's service record from the certificates. According to P. W. 12, A.K. Sengupta (P.W. 1) had given him Exhibits I, I(a), I(c), I(d) and V. For certain reasons mentioned by him, suspicion of P.W. 12 was aroused and enquiries were made regarding the genuineness of the documents. Replies had been made in due course regarding these enquiries. According to P.W.I, he had asked the appellant for certificates regarding his age, qualifications and military qualifications and in due course, the appellant had supplied P. W. 1 with certain documents named by this witness, which have been marked as Exhibits I, I(a) and I(b). P.W. 1 had prepared the appellant's service book on the documents supplied by him. Substantially, these were the allegations against the appellant upon which the two charges were framed.

(3.) The defence case was that the appellant knew nothing about Exhibits I, I(a), I(b), I(c) and I(d). In his statement before the (earned trial Judge, the appellant stated that he had not produced those documents before the Heavy Engineering Corporation. He admitted to have made an application for appointment, which has been marked as Exhibit A, but he denied to have filed any other paper at all. According to the appellant, he had been falsely implicated in the case, as he had some altercation with P.W.12. The appellant further stated before the learned trial Judge that there had been a case of theft at the place of one Sri Verma, and in that connection also, he had some dispute with P.W. 12. As stated earlier, the learned trial Judge has convicted the appellant under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code only, acquitting him of the charge under Section 466.