EMPEROR Vs. ANNAJI VENKATESH MUJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The four accused were charged before the Sessions Judge of Belgaum, first of all, with having conspired together and forged a document purporting to he a will passed by one Sanganbasaveshwar Swami of Chikodi in favour of accused No. 3 on December 15, 1919; secondly, accused No. 3 with having fraudulently and dishonestly used the said will as genuine by producing it in support of his claim in the Chikodi Magistrate's Court on December 23, 1921, knowing then or having reason to believe it to be a forged document; and thirdly, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 with having instigated and abetted accused No. 3 to so use it, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sub-section 467, 471 and 109, Indian Indian Penal Code. The Judge convicted all the accused. Agreeing with all four assessors he found accused No. 3 guilty of forgery of the will Exhibit 13, and of using it as genuine. Agreeing with all four assessors he found accused No. 4 guilty of forgery of the will and agreeing with three assessors and disagreeing with the fourth he found accused No. 4 abetted accused No. 3's use of the will as genuine. Agreeing with three assessors and disagreeing with the fourth he found accused No. 2 guilty of forgery of the will and abetting accused No. 3 a use of the will as genuine. Agreeing with one assessor. and disagreeing with the other three he found accused No. 1 guilty of forgery of the will and of abetting accused No. 3's use of the will as genuine. He did not think there was any reason to make a difference in awarding punishment to the accused, as he thought they were all equally involved. So he sentenced all the accused to five years rigorous imprisonment each.

(2.) Sanganbasaveshwar Swami of Chikodi died about August 9, 1921, and the will, the subject-matter of the charge against the accused, was put forward by accused No. 3 to support his succession to the Math.

(3.) In September 1921 one Gurushiddaya applied for proceedings being taken under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, with regard to the obstruction to his possession and enjoyment of a certain Survey Number belonging to the Math. It was in the course of those proceedings that the accused produced the document which he asserted proved his title to the Math property. While these proceedings were going on Gurushiddaya, after the will had been produced by the third accused, charged him with having forged it. Accused No. 3 was arrested but was released on his own recognisance, and on February 27, 1922, that complaint was for some reason or other dismissed. On April 5, the Magistrate decided the proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, in favour ofthe applicant, and directed an inquiry under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, with regard to the will which was alleged to be a forgery. On April 6, the date on which those proceedings commenced, the third accused made a statement before the Magistrate Mr. Shirali in which he confessed that the document he produced was a forged one and that he produced it with the knowledge that it was forged. He then detailed how the document came to be prepared, and it was in consequence of information then given by the third accused that the present prosecution was instituted. The story he had told to Mr. Shirali was briefly to this effect. The Swami died on the night of August 9, 1921. He was buried on Wednesday, and on Thursday the second accused came to the Math and took him to his house which was next door. The second accused said that the third accused had been doing Vahivat of the Math for many years, and that he should cause application to be made enabling him to succeed to the Math. The third accused asked him how he could succeed when the Swami had installed a disciple. The second accused told the third accused that he would succeed if he (the third accused) said that the installation ceremony was performed after the death of the Swami. Eight days later accused No. 2 took accused No. 8 to the house of accused No. 4, and also brought the first accused.. An application was then prepared to be sent to the Collector to the effect that Sanganbasaveshwar Swami was (load and that the name of the third accused should be registered as his successor. As no answer was received another application was sent a week later. The first application was then received back with, an endorsement that the third accused should have applied to the Mamlatdar. An application was made to the Mamlatdar and that was returned asking the third accused to apply to the village officers of the different villages direct.