MUTHUVARAPU SESHIAH Vs. GATRAM RAMIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I think in this case the order of the District Judge granting sanction must be set aside. The petitioner filed a suit on a promissory-note bearing a certain date. He afterwards withdrew the suit with the permission of the Court, before any summons or notice was taken out for the defendant. The defendant made an application for sanction for the prosecution of the plaintiff under Sections 453, 471, 475 and 476 of the Indian Penal Code. The District Munsif refused sanction, but the District Judge has set aside that order and granted sanction. There has been no inquiry into the question whether the promissory-note is forged. The suit was not heard, and no evidence has been taken as to the genuineness or otherwise of the note. The defendant has filed an affidavit stating that the promissory-note was a false document and that he owed no money. The plaintiff, on the other hand, insists that it is genuine and was executed for proper consideration.

(2.) The District Judge says that, because the stamp used did not come into use on the alleged date of the promissory-note, it must at least have been ante-dated. But the plaintiff gives an explanation as to how such a stamp came to be affixed on the note. He says that the defendant himself fraudulently affixed the stamp in question in order to evade his liability. There has been no inquiry as to which of the allegations is correct, and there is nothing like a judicial finding that the promissory-note is forged. A Court before granting sanction, ought to be satisfied that there is at least a prima facie case for prosecution, and the person to be prosecuted must have had an opportunity of showing that the document on which he based his suit is true and genuine. I do not wish to lay down that the inquiry must be in any. particular form. But there must be some inquiry and the Court granting sanction must be satisfied on evidence that the document used in Court is false. There are, no doubt, cases in which it has been held, that where a suit has been properly tried, there need not be any fresh inquiry as to the character of the document already found to be false. But I am not aware of any case in which it has been held, that when a suit has not been tried at all, sanction may be granted for the prosecution of the plaintiff in respect of a document filed by him in Court without its being found on proper inquiry held for the purpose that there are sufficient grounds for holding the document to be a forgery. On this ground the sanction ought, in my opinion, to be set aside, and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to consider the question whether the District Munsif is right in holding, on the authority of Ambika Prasad Singh v. Emperor 35 C. 820 : 8 Cr. L.J. 398 that there has been no user in this case within the meaning of Section 471, Indian Penal Code. Spencer, J.

(3.) The promissory-note alleged to be forged in this case bore the signature of the promisee over a postal and revenue stamp of a kind which was not introduced into circulation until after the date of the document upon which it was used. Prima facie, an offence of forgery was committed by some one in respect of it.