SHEIKH MEHAR ALI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In money Execution Case No. 64 of 1951, pending in the Court of the Munsif, first Court, at Kishanganj, some property was sold on the 9th September, 1952. Delivery of possession seems to have been finally effected on the 6th March, 1955. Later on, it was detected that forgeries had been committed by making interpolations in regard to the area of some land sold in the writ of delivery of possession and the sale certificate. The learned District Judge of Purnea directed an enquiry into the matter under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereinafter called the Code. The enquiry in the first instance was by the Munsif, second Court, but it was found that that Court had no jurisdiction to make the enquiry in the case. Subsequently, in Miscellaneous Case No. 35 of 1963, the enquiry has been made by Munsif, first Court. He has held by his order dated the 27th July, 1963, that prima facie the petitioner, who was a pleader's clerk working in the case and Tafazzul Hussain, Opposite Party No. 2, had jointly committed the forgeries and thereby had committed the offence punishable under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code. He has, therefore, lodged a complaint against the said two persons before the learned Sub divisional Magistrate, Kishanganj, for their prosecution for the commission of the aforesaid offence.

(2.) Both the persons filed Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1963 before the learned Sessions Judge of Purnea. The appeal has been dismissed. Since the matter is concerned with the commission of the alleged forgeries in documents relating to a civil proceeding, a civil revision application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by Sheikh Mehar Ali, the pleader's clerk only, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Deonandan Singh v. Ramlakhan Singh, AIR 1948 Pat 225.

(3.) Mr. S. B. Sanyal, appearing in support of the rule, in the first instance, submitted the following three points : (i) that the petitioner was not a party to the proceeding and hence an enquiry under Section 476 of the Code in view of the provisions of law contained in Section 195(1)(c) was incompetent; (ii) that the alleged forgery was committed or seems to have been committed after the disposal of the proceeding for delivery of possession, and, therefore, again in terms of Section 195 (1) (c) of the Code no complaint can be filed by a Court on the basis of an enquiry under Section 476 of the Code ; and (iii) that an offence under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code is not one which is covered by the provisions of Section 195 (1) (c) of the Code.