MAHESH CHANDRA PRASAD Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by two men, Mahesh Chandra Prasad and Raghubansi Prasad Chaudhry, who have been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge of Darbhanga. The former has been convicted under Section 466, Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The latter has been convicted of abetting the commission of that offence and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years, presumably on the ground that the offence was committed at his instigation and for his benefit.

(2.) On 6 January 1910, Raghubansi Prasad Chaudhry took a conveyance of certain land from one Ramkaran Jha. Some three weeks or so earlier, on 14th December 1939, this land had been sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent and had been purchased by the landlord. Ramkaran Jha made an application to have the sale set aside, and, pending the disposal of it, obtained an order staying the confirmation of the sale and the delivery of possession. This application was dismissed on 4 April 1940, and shortly afterwards, the sale was confirmed. Subsequently, on 29 August 1940, an application under Order 21, Rule 90, Civil P.C., was made by Raghubansi Prasad Chaudhry. The ground taken in the application was that Raghubansi Prasad Chaudhry had taken a conveyance of the land before the sale in execution of the rent decree was confirmed. When the application was put in, there was also put in along with it, a list of documents which list was made out by Mahesh Chandra Prasad, who was Raghubansi Prasad Chaudhry's karpardaz. The application eventually came up for hearing on 14th June 1941, and the ground then taken was not that Raghubansi Prasad Chaudhry had taken a conveyance of the land on 6 January 1940, but that, some time earlier, on 22 October, 1939, Ramkaran Jha had entered into a contract to sell the land to him. On behalf of the auction purchaser, it was contended that this ground could not be taken as it had not been specifically taken in the original application which was, in any event, not maintainable. The learned Munsif took time to consider the matter. During the hearing, the mahadanama or contract of sale, entered into between Ramkaran Jha and Raghubansi Prasad Chaudhry, had been referred to, but had not actually been shown to the Court. The learned Munsif wished to look into it before coming to a decision, but was unable to find it in the record. On the following day, when he came to Court, he asked the peshkar to examine the record and show it to him, but, according to the peshkar, he too was unable to discover it. The pleaders were then sent for, and one of them on examining the record, discovered in it a closed envelope. This envelope, which bore on it the signature of the pleader who had appeared on behalf of Raghubansi Prasad Chaudhry, was opened and in it there was discovered the mahadanama. Both the mahadanama and the envelope bore the impression of a seal on them which, admittedly, was not the seal of the Court of the Munsif.

(3.) When the list of documents, which, as I have already said, had been made out by Mahesh Chandra Prasad, was looked into, it transpired that the entry in it, relating to the mahadanama, was, or appeared to be, an interpolation. The learned Munsif thereupon made an investigation into the matter, and, eventually, directed that the appellants should be prosecuted.