PROVAT RANJAN BARAT Vs. UMA SANKAR CHATTERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals from an order dated 9 May 1930 made by Costello, J., directing that a complaint be made and forwarded to the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 476, Criminal P.C., The appellant in Appeal No. 7 is Provat Ranjan Barat and the appellants in Appeal No. 53 are Sivapada Bhattacharjee, Ramendra Lal Gupta and Satis Chandra Bose.

(2.) It appears that one Uma Sankar Chatterjee applied for Letters of Administration to the estate of Sreemuthy Krishna Bhamini Devi, alleging that she died intestate on 18 February 1928. Thereupon the appellant Provat Ranjan Barat filed a caveat on 19 April 1928 by Ramendra Lal Gupta, an attorney of this Court, claiming to be the sole executor under a will which turns out to bear date 22nd Magh 1334 B.S. A caveat was also filed on behalf of the Secretary of State and another on behalf of one Jungilal Ghose. The matter having been set down as a contentious cause, came on for hearing before the learned Judge on 20 February 1929. Provat Ranjan Barat did not appear either in person or by advocate, but the other parties came to terms and Letters of Administration were granted to Uma Sankar Chatterjee, it being ordered that the terms of settlement be recorded. The caveat of Provat Ranjan Barat was dismissed with costs; and the learned Judge directed that the records be sent to the Government Solicitor with a view to obtain his opinion whether Provat Ranjan Barat could be prosecuted. It would seem that the Government Solicitor was of opinion that the matter should be considered by the Public Prosecutor who took the matter up at the instance of this Court. After considering certain documents and inspecting the alleged will at the office of Mr. Ramendra Lal Gupta, and considering certain letters written by Ramendra Lal Gupta on behalf of Sivapada Bhattacharjee and referred to in the affidavit of documents of Uma Sankar Chatterjee, the Public Prosecutor came to the conclusion that there was a prima facie case of forgery not only against Provat Ranjan Barat, but also against the attorney Ramendra Lal Gupta, Sivapada Bhattacharjee and Satis Chandra Bose, the scribe of the alleged will. Accordingly the learned Judge, after considering the report of the Public Prosecutor, made the order now complained of under Section 476, Criminal P.C., complaining against Provat Ranjan Barat of forgery, or procuring- the forging of the will, under Section 467, I. P.C., and of dishonestly using as genuine the said will, under Section 471, I. P.C. He likewise complained against Satis Chandra Bose, Sivapada Bhattacharjee and Ramendra Lal Gupta for having abetted or conspired with Provat Ranjan Barat in the commission of the said offences, and against all the parties mentioned for having conspired with one another to commit the said offences and aiding and abetting one another in the commission thereof.

(3.) In Appeal No. 47, Provat Ranjan Barat takes exception to this order on the grounds that there were no materials before the learned Judge to justify it and that the learned Judge was not entitled under Section 476 of the Code to proceed upon the basis of any police enquiry, but was bound, if he thought any enquiry to be necessary, to hold such enquiry himself. In Appeal No. 53, the appellants take an additional point to the effect that as they were none of them parties to any proceeding before the learned Judge, their offence, if any, does not come within Clause (c), Sub-section 1, Section 195 and that no such order as has been made is within the provisions of Section 476 of that Code.