AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Hurji lodged a complaint before the S. H. O. , Police Station, Bichhwada that Smt. Kanku wife of Natha had a son Vaja. However, Smt. Kanku left the house of Natha and coma to live with the father of complainant Daula as his second wife. After the death of his father she continued to live with the complainant. On 16-9-82, Smt. Kanku was seriously ill and was not in her senses. On 25-9-82, while she was still not in her senses, Vaja took her to his house and on 26-9-82 in the morning, he called the two petitioners Amar Singh Tehsildar-cum Sub-Registrar, Chhotisadri and Omprakash, who was working as clerk and got a will registered purporting to have been executed by Smt. Kanku. Smt. Kanku died on the same day. The will is said to have been attested by Natha. Bana and Leela, and the case of the complainant is that the will was got attested by which on the pretext that a panchayatnama of the deceased was (illegible ). Thus, according to him, the two petitioners were party to the forgery of the will. On this, the police made investigations and, ultimately, filed a final report to the effect that one of the witnesses produced by the complainant has either supported his case or has stated that Smt. Kanku was unconscious (illegible) she had willed away her property in favour of her son while she was in complete senses. However, the Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Doongarpur, did not accept this final report and took cognizance of the offence under sec. 420, IPC against the present petitioners. Aggrieved of this, the petitioners went up in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Doongarpur, but he declined to interfere. Hence, they have approached this court by way of an application under sec. 482, Cr. P. C.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. A perusal of the record to show that the learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate appears to have been led away from the fact that Smt. Kanku died on the same day when the will is said to have been got registered in the morning of that day and that according to him, raised a grave suspicion about the will being a forged one. The view taken by the learned Magistrate appears to the perverse. [merely because] the executant of the will died on the same day in the forenoon while the will had been got executed by him/her in the morning cannot necessarily give rise to the conclusion that the will was forged one, specially when the witnesses examined by the police clearly state that she was in her complete senses when she executed the will and wanted to give her property Jo her son Vaja and not to the son of her second husband, i. e. the complainant. Not only this, the will is said to have been attested by the three witnesses and so far as this attestation is concerned, the case of the complainant was that they were made to attest the will on the understanding that the panchayatnama about of the death of Smt. Kanku was being prepared. The explanation, appears to be preposterous on the very face of it because when Smt. Kanku died in the after-noon there was no question of the panchayatnama being prepared in the morning when the will is said to have been executed. It is not the case of any of the witnesses that any police official was present at the time of the death. In these circumstances I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no material on the record to justify the cognizance of the offence being taken against these petitioners. The orders of the two courts-below are, therefore, set aside and the proceedings are quashed. .