SURJA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURJA Ram was convicted under Section 471/467 of the Indian Penal Code to two years' rigorous imprisonment and to Pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default thereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for five months by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh by his judgment dated August 31. 1968 for having produced a forged receipt in an execution case in which he was the judgment-debtor. Surja Ram appealed but the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Sri Ganga-nagar by his judgment dated May 10, 1971 dismissed the appeal. Dissatisfied Surja Ram is before me asking for a revision.

(2.) IN execution case No. 59/59 Ramlal was the decree-holder and Surja Ram was the judgment-debtor. It was an instalment decree in which the instalment fixed was of Rs. 500/ -. In answer to the execution levied by the decree-holder Surja Ram filed an objection and produced a receipt Ex. P-7 dated 14-6-1959 in an effort to prove that the instalment had already been paid to the decree-holder. Witnesses were examined by Surja Ram to show that the receipt Ex. P/7 was executed by Ramlal in their presence. Ramlal, however, maintained that he had received no such amount and that the receipt was a forgery. He examined Mr. K. S. Puri, a finger-print expert, who proved that the finger-print on the receipt Ex. P-7 was of loop variety while the thumb impression of Ramlal on Exhibit P. 15 was of whorl type and the two were diametrically opposite. The objection of judgment-debtor Surja Ram was rejected and the learned court executing the decree ordered Suria Ram's prosecution. An application was moved under Section 476, Criminal P. C. against Mamraj. Banwarilal and Budhram for their prosecution for forgery. After necessary inquiry, the Court ordered that the four persons be prosecuted under Sections 467. 471 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code. A First Class Magistrate after holding committal proceedings committed all of them and they came before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to face their trial. He found that it was not established by the prosecution that Mamraj, Banwarilal and Budhram had committed the forgery but he found that the receipt Exhibit P-7 was a forgery without doubt on the evidence of the finger-print expert and that the said receipt was produced before the Court executing the decree in execution case No. 59/59 by Shri Brijlal, Advocate, appearing for and on behalf of Surja Ram. The defence of Surja Ram was that he had no knowledge that the document whien he produced in the execution case was a forged one. He examined Ramjas as a defence witness to show that it was on August 6, 1968 when he went to the Municipal Dispensary. Rajsingnagar. Surja Ram happened to disclose to Ramjas that he had a case against him on the basis of a receipt. Ramjas then supplied him the information that he remembered that it was in June, 1959 when he was sitting in Co-operative Societies' Office that Ramlal came there and took a stamp and got the impression of his brother-in-law on one paper which was half written and that it was a receipt in the sum of Rupees 500/ -. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge rejected this as an afterthought and sentenced accused Suriaram as indicated earlier. After an unsuccessful appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge Surja Ram is here.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the accused submitted that the prosecution has not been able to establish that when the receipt was produced by Surja Ram he had knowledge that it was a forged receipt. In any event the learned Counsel urged that the offence if found to be proved was committed in 1959 and we are in 1974. Fifteen years of protracted trial is a punishment in itself and the accused has already undergone about 25 days' rigorous imprisonment. This certainly is a case which calls for great reduction in the sentence.