RAM LAL TULSIYAN Vs. SATYANARAYAN BANKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is revision arising out of an order in a proceeding under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by which the prayer made by the present petitioner for lodging a complaint against the members of the opposite party was rejected and that order was subsequently confirmed on an appeal preferred by the present petitioner. It appears that the present opposite parties 1 and 2 were two of the defendants in a money suit namely Money Suit No. 74 of 1962 which was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur by the present petitioner. While hearing of the suit was going on in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Muzaffarpur to whom it had been transferred, some Robar Bahis which were filed by opposite parties 1 and 2 were inspected by two of the lawyers of the plaintiff of the suit, that is, the present petitioner on 18th July, 1964, which was a Saturday. It is alleged that on the following day, which was a Sunday, a servant of the plaintiff, namely, Gokul Prasad Dhanuka, found present opposite parties 1 and 3 talking with opposite party No. 4 who was the then Bench clerk of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, in suspicious manner on the verandah of the Court; room and he informed the plaintiff (i.e. the petitioner) about it and he then asked him to keep watch over the persons. Gokul Prasad it is alleged thereafter, found these persons handling some Rotar Bahis. The lawyers of the plaintiff were duly informed of this incident and on the following day i.e. on 20th July, 1964 on examining the Robar Bahis again they found that some blank space which they had defeated in course of the inspection on 18th July, 1964, as against an entry in the Rokar Bahis with respect to a sum of Rs. 500/ - had been filled up. Thereafter the proceeding under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, out of which the present revision has arisen was instituted on a petition by the present petitioner.

(2.) AFTER considering the evidence adduced by the parties in the proceeding the trial court disbelieved the version of the petitioner regarding the alleged interpolation in the Rotar Bahis after inspection thereof on 18th July, 1964, and further held that it was non expedient in the interest of justice to lodge any prosecution and the prayer of the plaintiff -petitioner was accordingly rejected. The appeal which was preferred against this order by the present petitioner was heard by the learned District Judge, Muzaffarpur and he also came to the finding that the version of the plaintiff, that is the petitioner, that the opposite parties had made interpolation in the Rotar Bahis could not be accepted and as such it was not expedient in the interest of justice to take any action against them and the appeal was accordingly dismissed by him.

(3.) CONSIDERING all the aspects I am quite unable to accept the contention that the two Courts below had acted beyond their jurisdiction in coming to a finding on the question as to whether interpolation had been taken place and as such there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the orders passed by them.