MANGAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Arrah convicted petitioner Mangal Singh of charges under Sections 467, 471 and 193 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years under Section 467, Penal Code. He was also sentenced to the same term of imprisonment under Section 471. Penal Code. No separate sentence was, however, passed on his conviction under Section 193, Penal Code. The sentences under Sections 467 and 471 of the Penal Code were made concurrent. On appeal by the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Arrah upheld the convictions but reduced the sentences both under Sections 467 and 471, Penal Code, to two years and ordered them to run concurrently. This petition has been preferred against the conviction and sentence passed upon him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) The petitioner was prosecuted as a result of a proceeding under Section 476 of the Criminal P.C. ordered against him by the learned Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar. The petitioner was alleged to have filed a sada deed of exchange dated 4-5-1950, in the court of the learned Sub-divisional Officer in a proceeding under Section 144. Criminal P. C. That proceeding related to a dispute between petitioner Mangal Singh on the one hand and Ramraj Gareri and his cousin Ramjatan Gareri on the other. The latter claimed the land to be in their possession as 'bataidar. They stated that they had been in possession of the land in dispute which was plot No. 698 for several years before the date of the proceeding. The petitioner, on the other hand, claimed to be in 'khas' possession of the land. It appears that the proceeding terminated in favour of the 'bataidars' and that the learned Sub-divisional Officer did not accept the case of the petitioner that he was in 'khas' possession of the disputed lands. On the termination of the proceedings, however, the learned Sub-divisional Officer was of the opinion that the sada deed of exchange referred to above was a forged document and had been brought into existence to support the false claim of the petitioner and, as such, he was guilty of fabricating this document as well as of using it knowing it to be a forged document. On a complaint having been filed accordingly, the petitioner was committed to the court of session to take his trial on the above three charges under Sections 467, 471 and 193, Penal Code.

(3.) It may be stated at this stage that the principal ground for the prosecution of the petitioner was that the sada deed of exchange which is Ext. 9 in the case was alleged to have been executed on 4-5-1950 whereas the cartridge paper on which it was written was issued on 17-8-1950, so that this piece of paper could not have been available for the execution of the deed of exchange on 4-5-1950, as alleged by the prosecution. It was, accordingly, thought expedient by the learned Sub-divisional Officer that the petitioner should be prosecuted for using this forged document in the legal proceeding before him and, accordingly, the criminal case which resulted in the conviction of the petitioner was lodged.