EMPEROR Vs. PANCHANON SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are both of opinion that in the circumstances the reference must be rejected. The accused Panchanon was tried by a jury for offences punishable under Section 467 and Section 477-A, I.P.C. The record shows that at the conclusion of the trial after deliberation lasting for more than half an hour the jury in answer to the questions put to them replied that they were unanimous and that they found the accused not guilty on all the charges. The accused was a tahsildar of the Cossimbazar estate and it was alleged that in one case he had collected rent from a tenant and had put the proceeds into his own pocket, and that in another case he had collected rent from another tenant and had only credited a portion of the rent so collected to the estate and misappropriated the balance, and further that in order to conceal his dishonesty he had made certain false entries and alterations in the books of the estate containing counterfoil receipts. He was charged under both the sections.

(2.) I have mentioned in respect of a counterfoil receipt which was marked as Ex. 6, and which, it was suggested, was used to take the place of the counterfoil which would have ordinarily come into existence in respect of the rent receipt granted to the tenant the whole of whose rent had been misappropriated. He was also charged under both the sections in respect of a counterfoil which was a counterfoil in respect of the rent receipt granted to that tenant, whose rent was partly paid into the account of the estate with the Imperial Bank, and partly misappropriated. It was the prosecution case that these documents and certain other documents were in their entirety in the handwriting of the accused, and evidence to prove this was called, the witness being persons who were familiar with the handwriting of the accused and had actually seen him write and also a handwriting expert Mr. Benett. It is not quite plain to what extent the accused admitted that the documents were written by him, but undoubtedly a suggestion was made on his behalf that he might have been the victim of conspiracy on the part of other employees of the estate, who succeeded in getting him into trouble my means of rent receipts which bore his signature in blank. This summary of the case is sufficient to enable us to deal with the reference.

(3.) When we turn to the letter of reference we find it irregular in more than one respect. Section 307, Criminal P.C, requires not only that the Judge should disagree with the verdict of the jurors, but also that he should be clearly of opinion that it is necessary for the ends of justice to submit the case to the High Court. The learned Judge in this case states that he is unable to agree with the unanimous verdict of the jury, and is of opinion that the verdict is not only not in accordance with the weight of evidence, but is also perverse.