EMPEROR Vs. SANJIV RATNAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case accused No. 1, Sanjiv Ratnappa Ronad, late Sub-Inspector of Kolhar, and accused No. 2 Mahomad Haja-ratsa, who was a constable serving under him, were convicted by the Sessions Judge of Bijapnr, No. 1 under Secs.830, 348 and 465, and No. 2 under Secs.330 and 348 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code with voluntarily causing hurt to extort a confession and with wrongful confinement of persona with a view to extort a confession, and accused No. 1 was farther convicted under Section 465 of forgery for having made a false document, viz, a copy of his case diary as evidence in his favour. The accused were sentenced to various periods of imprisonment and fine, [His Lordship after stating the facts summarised above proceeded :]

(2.) The charge of forgery in this case has been the subject of considerable argument and has given rise to two or three questions of some importance in law, which, I think, should be dealt with before I go to the facts, The first point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that in view of the provisions of Section 195 (1)(c) of the Criminal P. C. it was not open to the Sessions Court to take cognizance of the offence of forgery described in Section 463 without the complaint of the committing Magistrate, and in support of that proposition the learned Counsel referred to a number of cases, viz., Bhau Vyanhatesh, In re, s.c. 27 Bom. L.R. 697, Nalini Kanta Laha V/s. Anukul Chandra Laha (1917) I.L.R. 44 Cal. 1002, and Kanhai-ya Lal V/s. Bhagwan Das (1925) I.L.R. 48 All. 60; and the learned Government Pleader has quoted Noor Mahomed V/s. Kaikhosru (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 263. But the point which arises in all these cases is not one which arises in the present case at all, Those are all cases in which a document produced in a Court in connection either with civil proceedings or with proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 145, or in some matter unconnected with the actual offence of forgery, has been found to be a forged document, and no prosecution for the offence of forgery could be taken cognizance of by a criminal Court except on the complaint of the Court in which the document was produced or given in evidence. But that is entirely different to the facts of the present case where the document was produced in Court not in connection with any other case, but in a prosecution founded upon it, for the purpose of convicting the accused of an offence in relation to it, and none of the cases which have been quoted will apply. No question of giving sanction by the committing Magistrate could arise when he himself was considering the question of what charge should be framed on this document. The first objection, therefore, in my opinion, does not stand.

(3.) Then another objection was raised that even supposing that no complaint of the Court in which the document was produced will be necessary, nevertheless the charges under Sections 330 and 348 could not be combined with the charge under Section 465, and that Section 235 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which is the only section which would cover the case, would apply, because the series of acts are not so connected together as to form the same transaction. But a consideration of the facts of the present case will show that that contention has nothing in it. According to the prosecution accused No. 1 beat and confined the Katbus in order that they might confess their share in the theft into which he was inquiring and might produce property. When, however, the present proceedings were instituted against him, according to the prosecution, he altered his diary in order to save himself from the consequences of his own acts, and these acts seem to be all parts of the same transaction, and the case is as a matter of fact very similar to that in which persons are charged with murder under Section 302 and causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201. Under the rulings of this Court in Emperor V/s. Sheruf-alli, s.c. 4 Bom. L.R. 930 and Emperor v. Datto Hanmant Shahapurkar, s.c. 7 Bom. L.R. 633 there must be a continuity of action and purpose in order that the acts may form the same transaction, and as a matter of fact the case is on all fours with the case in Emperor V/s. Balwant (1911) 11, Bom. L.R. 41, which is on precisely similar facts. In that case the accused was charged with having caused grievous hurt to a person for the purpose of extorting from him confession of his guilt and having, after his death from the injuries, prepared false official records to conceal the cause of his death. He was tried at one trial for the offence under Secs.331, 193 and 218 and convicted on all the charges. It was objected that the trial was bad on the ground of misjoinder of charges, It was held that there was no misjoinder, as the case fell under the plain words of Section 235 and its ill. (f) of the Criminal Procedure Code; the transaction of making a series of false entries so as to attribute another cause for the death was in con tinuation of and pursuant to the same transaction of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with the view of extorting confession, That case is on all fours with the present and is quite sufficient to dispose of the argument.