MOHAMMAD MEHDI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions have been referred to the Full Bench by the Division Bench before which the appeal came up for hearing. These are: (1) Is permission of the authorities mentioned in s, 83, Registration Act, necessary before an accused can be prosecuted under Section 82, Registration Act? (2) Does the permission accorded by the Inspector-General of Registration on August 28, 1933, validate the trial?

(2.) It appears that the accused persons were prosecuted under Section 467 read with Section 171, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 82, Registration Act (XVI of 1908). The case against them was that a forged document purporting to bear the thumb-impression of another person was executed and then presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar and a false person was identified as the executant. No permission of either the Inspector-General or the Registrar or the Sab-Registrar was obtained before the inquiry was made by the Magistrate. He took actionon the complaint made by a Deputy Collector who was hearing a mutation case following upon the registration of the disputed document. The learned Magistrate committed the accused to the Sessions Court. The order of reference assumes that no objection was taken on behalf of the accused before the Magistrate as to the absence of permission. The Sessions Judge appears to have accepted the commitment, fixed a date for the trial and then took evidence. Before the hearing commenced a letter was received, which had been signed on behalf of the Inspector-General of Registration and which granted the permission. The learned Sessions Judge after concluding the trial came to the conclusion that the want of sanction was a fatal defect to the prosecution. He then acquitted the accused on the main ground that no such sanction had been obtained before the commitment to his Court.

(3.) The Government have appealed from the order of acquittal, but this Full Bench is concerned with the two questions of law which have been referred to it for answer. Part 14, Registration Act, provides penalties for certain offences. Under Section 81 there is a penalty for incorrectly endorsing, copying, translating or registering a document with intent to injure some person. Then under Section 82, whoever intentionally makes a false statement, whether on oath or not, or intentionally delivers to a registering officer, a false copy or translation of a document, etc., or falsely personates another, and in such assumed character presents any document, or makes any admission or abets anything made punishable by the Act, is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine, or with both. Sub-section (i), reads as follows; A prosecution for any offence under this Act, coming to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity, may be commenced by, or with the permission of the Inspector-General...the Registrar or Sub-Registrar in whose territories, district or sub-district, as the case may be, the offence has been committed." Sub-section (2) provides as follows: "Offences punishable under this Act shall be triable by any Court or Officer exercising powers not less than those of a Magistrate of the Second Class."