RAMNARAIN SAHU Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been convicted--Ramnarain Sahu under Section 384, I.P.C., and his servant Bangali Singh under Section 342, I.P.C.,--and they have been fined Rs. 200 and Rs. 40 respectively. It has been found that Bangali and others forcibly took the complainant, a schoolboy of about fifteen, to the baithka of Ramnarain, where after being beaten at the order of Ramnarain, the boy was at the instance of Ramnarain forcibly made to execute a handnote for Rs. 400 in the name of Ramnarain's servant, petitioner 2.

(2.) Mr. B.P. Singh, who appears in support of the rule, is unable to contend that the conviction of Bangali is not correct. In respect of Ramnarain he contends that an offence under Section 384 cannot be said to have been committed inasmuch as the document which the boy was forced to execute was not a valuable security within the meaning of Section 30, I.P.C. He would arrive at this result through the consideration that the document being executed by a minor is altogether void as a security and he would distinguish such a void document from an unstamped or an unregistered document which he would class as voidable merely. On a similar ground he would distinguish the case of Emperor V/s. Ram Harakh Pathak A. IR 1926 All 57. In my judgment no such distinction exists. In both cases the document purports to be a document whereby a legal right is created or a person acknowledges that he lies under a legal liability.

(3.) On the face of it the document executed by the complainant created a legal liability and that was the view of the petitioner Ramnarain. It is immaterial that it might subsequently, upon certain evidence being given, be held to be of no effect against the executant. It certainly is a valuable security, within the meaning of Section 384 read with Section 30, I.P.C. The plea therefore cannot prevail. The application is accordingly with out merit and the rule is discharged. The sentences are light.