UMA SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two revrsional applications there are four petitioners out of five convicted persons. No. 513 of 1932 is the application of Uma Singh, Ratan Singh and Baijnath Lal and No. 514 of 1932 is of Damodar Singh. The first named three persons with Ramautar Singh and Damodar Singh were tried and charged under Section 420 and 120-B, I.P.C. by a First Class Magistrate of Arrah. Uma Singh received a sentence of 18 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300, in default a further rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 420 I.P.C. Ratan Singh and Baijnath lal along with Ramautar Singh were sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment each and a fine of Rs. 200 each, in default six months rigorous imprisonment whilst Damodar was sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, in default a further period of rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 420. All these accused persons were also convicted under Section 120-B. at the same trial and received sentences of six months each to run concurrently with the above mentioned sentences, and out of the fines Rs. 200 was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation. Damodar Singh has filed a separate revision application, No. 514 of 1932, against his conviction. The convictions and sentences under Section 420, I.P.C, were upheld by the Sessions Judge of Shahabad, but he set aside the conviction for conspiracy.

(2.) The prosecution case is shortly this: the complainant Sitaram Das is a Sadhu and lives at Morha Mathia in Mauza Banwalia; petitioner Damodar Singh is one of his chelas and he came to him one day in Asarh before last and told him that he had four or five friends who knew how to double notes, and that he could get the Sadhu s, notes doubled if he gave him some. Then a practical demonstration was arranged, and the four petitioners and Ramautar doubled currency-notes of Rs. 10 each and thus gained the confidence of the complainant who then agreed to give them Rs. 1,500 worth) of notes to be doubled. At the same time the complainant also gave them about Rs. 175 for incidental expenses

(3.) To make a long story short, eventually one day the petitioners got Rs. 1,300 out of the complainant and pretended to start note doubling. They gave the complainant a packet to carry home and told him that they would complete the operation on the following day, again taking incidental expenses from the complainant. On the following day then Damodar, petitoner, came to the complainant and told him that he could not trace the note doubters. The packet was opened and was found to contain charred papers. The complainant then threatened Damodar with a criminal prosecution and Damodar similarly threatened the complainant. A few days later the complainant met. Uma Singh at Arrah Railway Station and demanded back his money; the latter promised to pay it back. Then there was a panchayati over the affair and Damodar is alleged to have confessed his guilt and eventually offered complainant a gold necklace alleged to be worth Rs. 150. This when tested by a blacksmith turned out to be gilt. The patience of the complainant being thus at an end, he reported the matter to the police; and eventually these petitioners were put on trial on the charges mentioned above and were convicted.