AHMED ALI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellants have been convicted on the unanimous verdict of the Jury--the appellant No. 1 Ahmed Ali under Secs.193 and 467/109, Indian Penal Code--appellant No. 2 Sayadutulla Khan under Section 193 read with Section 109 and under Section 467. Indian Indian Penal Code, and appellant No. 3 Yusuf under Section 193 read with Section 109 and Section 467 read with Section 109. They have been sentenced under the earlier of these sections to rigorous imprisonment for three years and under the latter section to rigorous imprisonment for five years, the sentences running concurrently. I may observe that the Jury returned also an alternative verdict of guilty under Section 465/109, 465, 465/109 respectively against these appellants. The case against them was that they were concerned in the preparation of a certain borga kabuliyat which recites that the appellant Ahmed took a sub-lease from the appellant Yusuf of certain land which Yusuf, according to the recital, held under the landlord Joy Gobind Chowdhury. This document was presented for registration with the signature as an attesting witness of one Chittaranjan Chowdhury. The case for the prosecution was that none of the appellants had any title to the land and that the signature of Chittaranjan Chowdhury was a forgery.

(2.) Three main points have been urged against the charge delivered by the learned Judge to the Jury. The first is that he has wrongly explained to the Jury the law in respect to all the offences charged. In the second place, it is said that he has not sufficiently directed them as to the defence set up by the appellants; and in the third place it is said that he has adopted a wrong method in placing long extracts from the depositions of the witnesses before the Jury.

(3.) Now as regards the second of these points, we do not consider that it is of very great importance having regard to the view which we take as to the convictions under Ch. XVIII of the Indian Penal Code. As regards the third point, I may say that the learned Judge might have adopted a better method of putting new evidence before the Jury, and he might have arranged the matter with greater skill; but at the same time it is impossible to say that because he adopted the method which he did adopt, the Jury was in any manner misled in consequence.