JATAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated July 6, 1990, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar (Court No. 1) in Criminal Appeal No. 131/88, where by the conviction Under Sections 415/467/109 and 471, IPC, passed by the trial court was affirmed, but the sentence was reduced Under Section 467/109, IPC, from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year's simple imprisonment and fine amounting to Rs. 200/ - was maintained, in default of which, the petitioner has to undergo 20 days simple imprisonment. Under Section 471, IPC, the conviction of one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/ -, in default of which, the petitioner has to undergo 10 days; further simple imprisonment, as matained.

(2.) , Briefly, the complainant -respondent No. 2 filed a compaint in the court on April 5, 1975, stating that petitioner was tenant in his house since 1974 but he paid rent for short period and, thereafter, neither paid rent, nor vacated the house. It was stated that the petitioner prepared a forged document on letter -head of respondent No. 2 regarding sale of the house for a sum of Rs. 80 000/ -, which was alleged to have been paid in cash to respondent No. 2 It was further stated by respondent No. 2 that he gave this letter head to the accused -petitioner for depositing his LIC premium and had written address on the back side of the letter -head. On this, forged document is alleged to have been prepared. The trial court, after recording evidence of both sides, convicted and sentenced the petitioner, as mentioned above. The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed and the sentence was reduced, as stated above.'

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel and also perused the judgments of both the lower courts. The petitioner, as pointed out, lodged report with the Superintendent of Police and the Collector, regarding aareement Ex.P/1. After investigation, the police did not find any truth in the same and final report was given. The contention of the learned Counsel is that in the state -ment recorded by respondent No. 2 Under Section 161, Cr.PC, durtng the course of investigation, no mention regarding giving of cheque to petitioner for depositing the same in LIC was made. How ever, the petitioner cannot draw any benefit from this contention, because no record of the FIR lodged by the petitioner is part of this record, nor alleged statement given Under Section 161, Cr. PC, in that investigation can be considered in these proceedings. More over, statement Under Section 161, Cr. PC can only be used for the purposes of contradiction Thus, there is no force in the contentions raised by the learned Counsel It may be pointed out that the statement of DW 1 Shri KC. Mudal is a statement of general nature and has no specific significance so far as the matter in dispute involved in these proceedings in concerned. It is quite likely 'that the petitioner may not have produced the letter head at the deposit counter of LIC or may have somehow brought it bask after depositing the cheque for the instalment of the policy. The next contention raised by the learned Counsel is that when relationship between the parties became strained in June, 1974, the respondent No. 2 is not expected to have given him cheque to deposited the same in LIC. it may also he pointed out that since the relations of the parties were admittedly strained, how could respondeat No. 2 execute an agreement on a simple paper, which should have been on stamp papers. More over the amount of Rs. 80,000/ - is said to have been paid in cash, where as such large amount should only be given by way of Bank Draft or by a crossed cheque endorsed to A/c. payee only. The petitioner has also not cared to show his financial status or the source from which he is said to have drawn Rs. 80,000/ -, which are said to have been paid in cash. It may also be mentioned that since the petitioner stopped giving rent to respondent No. 2, a Civil suit for rent and eviction was filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioner, in which, ex -parte, decree (Ex. P/7) was passed. According to this decision, petitioner appointed two lawyers, who appeared on his behalf, but no reply to the same was filed, nor any plea regarding Ex. P/1 agreement to sell was raised in this civil suit. The petitioner simply vacated the house and went away. The petitioner himself also did not file any civil proceedings for specific performance when he had paid Such a large amount of Rs. 80,000/ - for purchase of the house. It may also -be pointed out that the petitioner, in his statement, given in writing, has stated that none was present when the amount of Rs. 80,000/ - was given to respondent No. 2 and that respondent No. 2 had closed the door of the room also. How ever, DW 1 K C. Mudal and DW 2 Padam Singh stated that they were present at the time when the amount was paid to respondent No. 2 and DW 3 Babu Singh says that he say the payment of the amount outside the room from window (Jangla). Since it is the petitioner, who had paid the amount of Rs. 80,000/ -. Ex. P/1 agreement is expected to be in possession of the petitioner himself. Therefore, question of erasing any portion of the said Agreement on the front page, which contained alleged signature of respondent No. 2, by a chemical, does not arise. On the other hand, the petitioner, in his statement, given in writing in court, has stated that at the time of execution of the agreement Ex. P/1 when he went upstairs to give Rs. 80,000/ - to him in between that time, the petitioner used some chemicals and erased his signature at the end of the writing on the front page. AH these contradictions pointedly indicate that the agreement Ex. P/1 is a forged document Both the parties have produced Handwriting experts, who have given opinions in favour of the parties who produced them. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly not relied upon the opinions of either of the Handwriting Experts. The trial court, therefore, under the provisions of Section 73 of Evidence Act, itself compared the signatures and come to the conclusion that the signature said to be that of respondent No. 2 on Ex. P/1 was forged. I, therefore, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of both the lower courts.