JANG BAHADUR LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment and sentence of the learned Sessions Judge of Shahabad who, agreeing with both the assessors, found the accused Jang Bahadur Lal guilty of the offence of using as genuine a false document, to wit, two rent receipts, and sentenced him to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 471, read with Section 467, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) We have had the evidence put before us and the judgment; of the learned Judge and we are of opinion that, apart from the questions of law which arise in the case, it would altogether be too dangerous to support this conviction on the evidence.

(3.) The case starts with a serious initial error in respect of the charge and that error seems to have been carried into the learned Judge s reasonings with regard to the user. Two documents are said to have been used which the accused knew to be forged. Now it might very well be that the decision of the Court would be that one of these documents was genuine and the other forged. In which case the charge as framed would entirely break down. The law is clear that there must be a separate count for every alleged item of perjury, or forgery, and this means that there must be independent evidence of user in the case of each document. Now what is the evidence in this case. The Assistant Settlement Officer says, that these two receipts were filed in support of the accused s claim, that his rent was Rs. 3 and not Rs. 3-12, and he says it does not appear whether the other receipts and papers i n the bundle were filed for that purpose or not, but he is convinced that they were not used. Now the patwari on whose evidence this case principally depends deposed that the accused took the papers out of his pocket in a bundle and threw them on the table in front of the Deputy. The Deputy was doing work in attestation camp surrounded by bamboos. The parties were outside the bamboos The Deputy Saheb took up all the receipts and saw them and asked me if I had granted them. I said I could say that if I saw them. I saw them and saw that the signatures on them were different and that they did not bear my signature or my father s signature or the malik s signature. Also the rent was less. They purported to be signed by Sheo Barat Singh and my father and two of them purported to be signed by me. None of the signatures were genuine. All the receipts filed by him at that time were forged." He does not say under what circumstances the accused person was taxed with forgery and made what is held by the Judge to be unincriminating statement. But it is perfectly clear from his evidence that these documents were not tendered by the accused independently and that the Settlement Officer himself selected these two receipts for inquiry and discarded all others. It now turns out, according to the pattern s own evidence, that two of these documents at least are genuine, and it is clear from the Settlement Officer s evidence that the patwiri did not aver before him that any of the documents were forged except Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2. We then have it from the Settlement Officers evidence that he examined the patwari and the malik s son and that he then taxed this accused with forgery and he asked him to write the patwirrs name and the name of Sheo Barat. The accused did so and then the recollection of the Settlement Officer is not quite clear as to whether he asked the accused to sign his own name or not. But however that may be, the accused fell at his feet and asked the following words--"Hazur kasur map kiya jaya ab aisa kubhi nahin hoga." Now this is not in itself an incriminating statement and the Settlement Officer does not say that he at the time was of opinion that the man had admitted these papers to be forgeries. He Siys that he is influenced by the man s conduct in thinking that the malik s statement as to the amount of rent is true: and that the raiyat s statement is false. But the words in themselves are not an admission of forgery or of using forged document. It is easy to understand that a man in the mofusil being suddenly asked to sign his name and the names of the people whose names he is alleged to have forged would ask to be excused. The statement in itself is certainly not a confessional statement.