BHIKHARI SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by one Bhikhari Singh who has been convicted under Section 120-B, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The circumstances under which the appellant was placed on his trial were as follows. In execution of a rent decree obtained by Tribhuban Singh and others the holding of one Jhopari Chamar was sold and purchased by one Bhusi Singh. Within thirty days from the date of the sale on 8 July 1933, an application accompanied with chalans was filed before the Munsif in whose Court the execution proceedings were pending in which an offer was made to deposit the decretal amount and the Court was asked to fill in the amount and pass and check the chalans with reference to the record of the case so that the money may be deposited. It is needless to state that the petition purported to be on behalf of Jhopari Chamar the tenant-judgment-debtor.

(2.) The prosecution case however is that in fact the petition had not been made by Jhopari Chamar but one Bajrangi Singh posing as Jhopari Chamar before the clerk who had written the petition and the Mukhtar who had endorsed his identification, has put his thumb mark on the petition and the chalans, and one Deonanadan Singh describing himself as Deoki Singh had signed the documents for the petitioner. It is also stated that the appellant Bhikhari Singh had introduced Bajrangi Singh as Jhopari Chamar to the pleader's clerk and supplied particulars of the case to enable him to draw up the petition and the chalans. Tribhuban Singh one of the decree-holders who had been watching the movements of these persons, promptly brought the matter to the notice of the registrar who after some enquiry reported the matter to the Munsif concerned.

(3.) The Munsif started a proceeding under Section 476, Criminal P.C., and made a complaint to the Magistrate against Bajrangi Singh, Deonandan Singh and Bhikhari Singh, in which after referring to the facts of the case he stated in his complaint as follows: The accused Bhikhari Singh and Deonandan Singh aided and abetted committing crime of forgeries in the aforesaid manner and are parties to forgeries. Having thus fabricated and forged the petition and the chalans the accused Bajrangi Singh, Bhikhari Singh and Deonandan Singh got the petition and chalans filed in the Court in order to defraud this Court and by means of this fraud to procure from the Court orders to set aside the sale... to the wrongful loss of the auction purchaser Bhusi Singh for the wrongful gain of the accused Bajrangi Singh. A prima facie case has thus been made out against the accused for their prosecution under Secs.466 and 471. I therefore complain against the above named persons for their prosecution under Secs.465 and 471 or under any other section that they may be found guilty. These three persons were ultimately placed on their trial, the first two on charges under Secs.465, 468 and 120-B read with Secs.468 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and Bhikhari Singh only on a charge under Section 120-B read with Secs.468 and 471, Indian Penal Code.