ABDUL GAFUR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner here obtained a rule against his conviction and sentence under Section 82, Registration Act. When he was tried before the Magistrate of Comilla, there were two other men with him as co-accused and they were convicted of abetment. On an appeal being heard on the part of the three persons before the Sessions Judge at Tipperah, the two persons who were charged with abetting the petitioner were acquitted. The sentence, the petitioner received in the trial Court, was one year's rigorous imprisonment and before the appellate Court this sentence was reduced to six months.

(2.) The actual charge against the petitioner was that he made a false statement before the Sub-Registrar in relation to a certain deed. This is how the lower appellate Court describes the material facts. The learned Judge says One Asafali executed a deed of gift in favour of the sons of his only son Abdul Gafur (who is the petitioner here). But before the deed could be registered, Asafali died. On a certain date Abdul Gafur presented the deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar of Muradnagar when Abdul Gafur himself as well as the attesting witnesses Ramijaddin, Fazarali and Chandmia said that Abdul Gafur was the only child and heir of Asafali. The Sub-Registrar was about to register the deed when a deed-writer, Baikuntha Debnath, who apparently knew Asafali, came forward and said that Asafali had left four daughters also who were his heirs along with Abdul Gafur. It is also found as a fact that thereafter the SubRegistrar had refused to accept the deed for registration. The next day then turned up at the office the husbands of the four sisters and admitted the proper execution of the deed and after that it was registered in due form. Nevertheless Abdul Gafur was prosecuted.

(3.) The main point argued before us was that this scene before the Sub-Registrar was not really a happening which is contemplated by the Act and that there was not enough formality to bring it within the language of the Act and more especially within Section 35. The statute however does contemplate these informal inquiries such as the Sub-Registrar was making on this occasion. Sub-s. (2), Section 35, for example, seems to be particularly appropriate to what was taking place with regard to this execution. It lays down that the registering officer, may, in order to satisfy himself that the persons appearing before him are the persons they represent themselves to be, examine any one present in his office.