JAI NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Jainarain Singh has been convicted under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur. The appellant was prosecuted on a complaint filed by the Registrar of this Court on the orders passed by a Division Bench, The complaint was lodged in the court of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, and bears date the 19th of March, 1952. The case against the appellant as disclosed in the petition of complaint was that the appellant was defendant in a partition suit pending in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge Muzaffarpur, in which a preliminary decree was passed and against which a first appeal and cross objection were preferred in this Court. The appellant made a prayer for stay of further proceedings in the suit and this Court, however, stayed only the signing of the final decree, and as such partition proceedings were going on as usual and a pleader commissioner was appointed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge for that purpose. The parties, however, came to an amicable settlement in regard to the properties to be partitioned and, accordingly, a petition of compromise was drafted to be filed in the Court of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge. The petition of compromise was actually filed in the Court at Muzaffarpur. The compromise, however, could not be recorded as the records of the case were in the High Court in connection with the first appeal, being First Appeal No. 504 of 1947, preferred against the preliminary decree. On the 13th December, 1949, the appellant had obtained a certified copy of the original compromise petition and the plaintiff Muneshwar Prasad Sahi also obtained a copy of the compromise petition on the 16th December 1949. It was discovered some time later that the original compromise petition was missing from the Court and that copies obtained by Muneshwar Pd. Sahi and appellant Jainarain Singh did not tally with each other in all respects. The plaintiff Muneshwar Pd. Sahi maintained that his copy was the true copy of the original, whereas tne appellant maintained that the copy obtained by him was the correct copy. It is stated that in the copy relied upon by the appellant there were clauses which were favourable to him and which did not find place in the copy relied upon by the plaintiff Muneshwar Pd. Sahi. The matter in dispute between the parties was brought to the notice of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge before whom the appellant challenged the copy of the plaintiff as incorrect and also questioned the validity of the compromise arrived at between them.

(2.) The learned Additional Subordinate Judge started an enquiry both with regard to the validity of the compromise and also with regard to which of the certified copy was genuine. The appellant at first did not take part in the proceeding and the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, accordingly, after holding a summary enquiry, came to the conclusion that the copy filed by the plaintiff was genuine, and also ordered the compromise petition to be reconstituted on the basis of the copy put in by the plaintiff. The appellant, however, subsequently appeared arid made a prayer for re-opening the question and, accordingly, a regular proceeding under Order 23, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, was started. In that proceeding the copy filed by the plaintiff Muneshwar Prasad Sahi was marked as Exhibit 7(a) and the copy filed by the appellant was marked exhibit A. On a comparison of the two copies, the learned Additional Subordinate Judge marked out the passages in respect of which the two documents differed and these passages were marked as exhibits B to B(6). He came to the conclusion that entries exhibits B to B(6) in exhibit A were forgeries and he reaffirmed his conclusion that the compromise petition should be reconstituted in accordance with the plaintiff's copy which was marked as exhibit 7(a). The reconstructed copy was marked exhibit 7. The compromise was accordingly recorded in terras of exhibit 7. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge felt that the loss of the document which was a petition of compromise and the forgeries in exhibit A made out a prima facie case for proceeding against the appellant Jainarain Singh under Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure, for having made interpolations in exhibit A, and the prosecution was accordingly ordered in terms of Sections 193, 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code. The appellant filed Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 82 of 1950 of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur under Section 476B, Code of Criminal Procedure, against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, directing a complaint to be filed against the appellant. The appellant also filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 172 of 1950 in this Court against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge dated the 27th March, 1950, recording the compromise on the basis of the reconstituted compromise petition. He also filed a Civil Revision application in this Court against the order for reconstruction of the petition of compromise.

(3.) On the 6th September, 1950 and the 9th October, 1950, Jainarain Singh applied for and obtained certified copies from the High Court of the three exhibits, exhibit 7 the reconstituted compromise petition, exhibit 7 (a) the copy filed by the plaintiff and exhibit A the copy filed by the appellant in the proceeding under Order 23 Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure. It may be stated, however, that after the appellant obtained copies of these documents, exhibit 7 was missing from the records of the case. Exhibit A was left on the record in a mutilated form inasmuch as several sheets which contained the entries exhibits B to B(6), which were found by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge to be interpolations, also disappeared leaving only the last three pages. Exhibit 7(a), however, was left on the record with some interpolations. Further, the appellant Jainarain Singh filed a petition in the court of the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 82 of 1950, referred to above, saying that he filed the copies of three documents, namely, copy of the reconstituted compromise petition, copy of the certified copy obtained by him and copy of the certified copy obtained by the plaintiff, that is to say, copies of exhibits 7, A and 7(a) and that originals of these documents might be called for from the High Court. The respondent Muneshwar Pd. Sahi of Misc. Appeal No. 172 of 1950 filed a petition before the Registrar on the 6th September 1951, stating that certain documents were found missing from the record and that in some of them interpolations were made at the instance of the appellant Jainarain Singh. He alleged further in the petition that this was discovered in the lower Court when the records were received there from the High Court in connection with some other matter. The Registrar by his order dated the 7th September, 1951, directed the Deputy Registrar to hold enquiry and to make a report. The Deputy Registrar examined the relevant witnesses and documents and found that in fact the copies held by the appellant Jainarain Singh were not genuine and that a prima facie case was made out that the three copies held by him were copies of forged documents of which Jainarain Singh was fully aware. The Deputy Registrar accordingly recommended the prosecution of the appellant Jainarain Singh for making forgeries or, at least, for using forged documents in evidence, because it appeared that by that time the appellant had filed these documents in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Muzaffarpur. A Division Bench accordingly took up the consideration of this question and ordered that a complaint should be filed against Jainarain Singh and directed the Registrar to do so. It was in compliance with this order that the Registrar of this Court filed a complaint against the appellant in the Court of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, under Section 471, Indian Penal Code, and the appellant was accordingly put up on trial.