RATI JHA Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this case was convicted of an offence under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to live years rigorous imprisonment. The document on which the charge of using a forged document was founded was a receipt for rent, and the occasion on which the appellant used it was at a trial in which he was one of the accused on a charge of rioting. The land in respect of which the riot took place was a piece of land of which he wished to take possession, and, in the course of the hearing of the criminal case against him, the receipt for rent in question was produced by him and handed to his mukhtear, who then handed it to a witness who was asked whether it was a receipt for rent granted by the landlord in favour of the present appellant, who was then one of the accused at the trial. The witness said it was not genuine; but notwithstanding that statement the document was initialled by the Magistrate who was trying the case, and was tiled as one of the documents produced on behalf of the accused. On these facts the appellant was convicted, as has been stated, under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The learned vakil, who appeared on behalf of the appellant in this Court, took four points on behalf of his client: (i) that the trial was bad because the sanction on which it was held was invalid; (ii) that there was nothing to show that the receipt was a forgery; (iii) that the receipt was not used within the meaning of the Code; and (iv) that the sentence was too severe.

(3.) With regard to the first point, the sanction was granted to the agent of the landlord whose seal was alleged to have been counterfeited on the rent-receipt. The learned vakil argued that the sanction ought to have been granted to a person who was one of the parties to the case in which the receipt was produced, namely, the rioting case. That contention finds no support from any of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and we do not agree with it. It appears to us that the landlord, whose seal had been counterfeited, was perfectly entitled to authorize his agent to obtain sanction to prosecute, and to prosecute in respect of the wrong which was done to him by counterfeiting his seal.