ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE OF NORTH ARCOT Vs. RAMANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference made by the Assistant Sessions Judge of North Arcot asking this court to quash the commitment of the accused in Sessions Case No. 55 of 1911 to the Court of North Arcot. The order of commitment was made by the Second Class Magistrate of Tirupattur. There are five accused in the case. The first accused Ramammah is the widow of one Rammakrishnier whose mother is the complainant. The second and third accussed are respectively the father and brother of the first accused. The fourth accused is also a relation of accused Nos. 1 to 3. The first accused executed on the 20th July I905 a mortgage deed for Rs. 3,000 in favour of the third and fourth accused and the consideration for this deed is stated in it to be the amount due for principal and interest on a promissory note dated the 10th August 1902, alleged to have been executed by the first accused s deceased husband in favour of the 4th accused for Rs. 2,400. The deed further recites that the executant, the first accused, received Rs. 1,500 out of the Rs. 3,000 from the third accused for payment to the fourth accused towards the amount due on the promissory note, In a suit for maintenance instituted by the complainant against the first accused in the District Munsif s Court of Tirupattur, No, 1062 of 1909, the first-accused pleaded, apparently with reference to the extent of the property in her hands liable for complainant s maintenance that she owed a debt of Rs. 3,000 to the 3rd and 4th accused on the mortgage mentioned above. She summoned the 4th accused to produce the mortgage deed and the promissory note and in obedience to the summons they were produced by him.

(2.) The case for the prosecution is that the promissory note of the 10th August 1902 is a forged document and that no debt was due by the first accused s husband to the 4th accused. The charges against the 1st accused are abetment of forgery of a valuable security (i.e., the promissory note) and fraudulently using the same, under Sections 468 and 109, Indian Penal Code, and Section 471, Indian Penal Code. The and, 3rd and 5th accused are charged with abetment of the forgery of the promissory note, the 2nd accused was the writer, and the 5th accused the attester of the promissory note. And the charges against the 4th accused are forgery of the promissory note and fraudulently using the same as genuine.

(3.) The learned Assistant Sessions Judge is of opinion that the commitment of all the accused is illegal. With regard to the 1st accused, the objection to the commitment according to him is that the prosecution was not maintainable without the sanction of the District Munsif s Court of Tirupatur, as the offences of abetment of forgery and using a forged document as genuine were committed by a party to O.S. 1062 of 1909 in court in respect of a document produced in that suit. The Assistant Sessions Judge is obviously right in holding that an offence under Section 463, Indian Penal Code, mentioned in Clause (c) of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, covers an offence under Section 468, Indian Penal Code, the object of mentioning Section 463 in Section 195(c), Criminal Procedure Code being to include all cases of forgery, whatever the nature of the fraudulent intention may be--Tani Shah v. Bolahi Shah (1909) 14 C.W.N. 479 and Queen-Empress v. Tulja (1887) I.L.R. 12 Bom. 36.