THUNNUDEO RAGHVI Vs. BALADEO RAGHUDEO RAGHVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the learned District Judge has on appeal directed the trial Court to enquire into an allegation of forgery with a view to starting prosecution. The trial Court had declined to start a prosecution under Section 476B, Criminal P.C. The facts are that a suit was brought for the recovery of a loan of Rs. 150, and the receipt by which it was evidenced appeared to contain an alteration of Rs. 50 to Rs. 150. The evidence of the expert who was called at the trial was to the effect that there was interpolation but was not conclusive as to when the interpolation was made, and although the scribe deposed that no alteration was made at the time when the document was executed, nevertheless the learned District Judge considered that there was not quite sufficient material on which to launch a prosecution, and therefore ordered the trial Court to make an enquiry. The order of the learned Judge 'is not well worded because he directs "the application to be enquired into." By the word "enquiry" he perhaps means a preliminary enquiry in which case after enquiry the case would have to be submitted to him and he would have to decide whether to allow the appeal or not. But he does not order this and I think that his order amounts to a remand not warranted by the terms of Section 476B, Criminal P.C. There seems to be a difference of opinion between the Allahabad and Madras High Courts as to whether in such an appeal under Section 476B the appellate Court has any other course except to allow or to dismiss the appeal: vide Vanni Nainar v. Periasami Naidu A.I.R. 1928 391 and Emperor v. Jagrup Shukul . I prefer the Allahabad view that an appellate Court in dealing with an appeal under Section 476B can take evidence if it wishes to.

(2.) BUT I doubt if any preliminary enquiry could serve any useful purpose except that of sending the document to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents to see whether he would be able to prove that the alteration in the document was made at some considerable interval of time after execution. The defendant in the suit who wants prosecution to be started deposed that the plaintiff had informed him of his intention to commit forgery by altering the document, and it is very difficult to believe that such a statement is true. If it were true one might have expected the defendant to report it to the police at once. Though I fully agree in principle with the learned District Judge that, when there is a suspicion of forgery it is desirable, that the matter should be investigated and that Courts should act suo motu, I do not on the whole consider that this is a case where the decision of the learned Judge who tried the suit and decided not to proceed further should be reversed. After the evidence of the expert called in the suit, I doubt if it would be possible to establish by expert evidence when the alterations were made, and in view of the fact that the defendant's evidence showed that he probably wanted more than Rs. 50 at the time when he incurred this debt. I doubt if the chances of successful prosecution are quite good enough to warrant taking up the time of the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, or if it is a suitable case for incurring the expense of obtaining his opinion and possibly examining him as a witness. Some alterations in documents are obviously made a good time afterwards, and there is every hope of a successful prosecution, but I doubt if this is the case here.