UMMED MAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY his judgment dated June 10, 1971 the learned Assistant Sessions Judge. Sirofai convicted applicant Ummed Mai for offences under Section 466 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 454 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. An apipeal was taken before the learned Sessions Judge, Pali, who, bv his judgment dated December 8. 1971, acquitted Ummed Mai of the offence under Section 454 read with Section 109 of the Jndian penal Code but maintained his conviction under Section 466 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, however, reduced the sentence from one year to four months' simple imprisonment but maintained the fine of Rs. 100/ -. Still dissatisfied, Ummed Mai is before me seeking the revision of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the background in thig case, it will be necessary to recount certain material facts. Mst. Sushila Devi (P. W. /10) was posted as a nurse in the Ayurvedic Dispensary. Sumerpur. during the material- period. No official accommodation was provided for the nurse and on a request being made to the Gram Panchavat. Sumerpur. for allotment of a house to her she was provided with one and the remt fixed was Rs. 25/- per month. Mst. Sushila Devi paid the rent for one month and then neglected and as Mst. Sushila Devi did not pay the rent the Gram Panchavat. Sumerpur, insisted that she should vacate the premises. Certain correspondence followed between Shri Davendra Kumar Vaidhya (P. W. /6) with the higher authorities on the subject and. the Collector Pali bv his order dated November 6, 1965, restrained the Gram Panchayat, Sumerpur. from setting the house which was occupied by Mst. Sushila Devi, vacated till further orders. Ummed Mai Up-sar,panch, Gram Panchavat. Sumenpur, was not happy with Mst. Sushila Devi and began to harass her. It has been alleged that Ummed Mai manipulated the transfer of Mst. Sushila Devi to village Bhoola and even then she did not vacate the house. Her transfer was later on cancelled and when she was asked to join her duties at Sumerpur on April 21. 1966, Mst. Sushila Devi was informed by Arribalal Compounder. that the lock of her house had been broken open bv the Gram Panchayat. Sumerpur and her articles had also been removed. She rushed to Sumerpur and found that the lock of her house had been broken open and her articles had been taken awav by the Gram Panchayat, Sumeripur. She lodged a written report Exhibit P/14 with the Superintendent of Police, Pali. Thereupon, a case under Sections 451 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. In the course of investigation it was discovered that the Gram Panchavat convened a general meeting on April 10. 1966" to discuss the business of the Gram Panchavat and as per proceedings recorded in the relevant register eleven Panchas were present and eleven resolutions were-passed and thereafter the statement of the income and expenditure of the said Panchayat was recorded. The signatures of tjhe Panchas were also obtained at tihe end of the recorded minutes but the small. space left 'between the resolution No. 11 and the statement of income and exjpen-diture a resolution No. 12 was squeezed into the effect that as Mst. Sushila Devi had not paid her rent she may be evicted from the house and the lock thereof may be broken open, it was alleged that the said resolution wag a forgery committed by Bhanwarlal, Secretary of the Gram Panchavat. Sumerpur. at the instance of Ummedi Mai Upsarpanch. who was acting as the Sarpanch during the material time. It was said that Bhagirathsingh and Bhikaram were also arrayed for committing offence under Section 454 of the Indian Penal Code. , The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, however, found that no offence was made out against Bhagi-rathsingh. Bhanwarlal and Bhdkaram and they were acquitted under Sections 454 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code but he convicted Ummed Mai as already indicated above. The appeal of Ummed Mai succeeded partly as I' have mentioned above and he has now come before me.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the 'petitioner contended that assuming that the' resolution No. 12 X to Y in Ex. P/4 is a forgery, the short question still remains namely, that there is no evidence to ^how that Bhanwarlal forged it at the instance of Ummed Mai.