HANUMAN SAHAY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 465, Indian Penal Code, for forgery of a hukumnama by ante-dating it. The petitioner was mulazim of Musammat Chandrabati Kuer, a khorposhdar under the Gawan estate, who died on June 25, 1935, The Courts have found that on October 21, 1935, the petitioner executed a hukumnama purporting to act as mulazim of Musammat Chandrabati Kuer, which he falsely dated as executed on June 16, 1935. Bhairo Lohar who had been a raiyat of the khorposhdar, and who after her death had become a raiyat of the parent estate, desired to borrow money in October 1935 from Anant Gope and Neju Mian in exchange for a portion of his holding. The three men are found to have gone to the petitioner, who said that he would arrange for the mutation of names, and who realised Rs. 10 as salami and Rs. 2-8-0 as costs, and then wrote out the questioned hukumnama.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner in the first place suggests that the learned Judicial Commissioner in dealing with the appeal of the petitioner has made a mistake of record; he remarks as a suspicious circumstance that the date on the hukumnama is in English which the raiyats could not understand. The learned Judicial Commissioner meant that the date was given in the English style, not that it was written in the English character; and there is no-error of record here. The date is given as June 16, 1935, in the Kaithi character. The prosecution witness Anant Gope, one of the persons who was advancing money to Bhairo Lohar, said in cross-examination that he showed the hukumnama to the tahsildar in Asim, that is to say, in September, but he promptly corrected himself by saying, that he did not remember the month. The Tahsildar Harihar Prasad who was examined as a witness, said that he did not see the hukumnama in September; and this statement of Anant Gope was apparently an inadvertent slip of the tongue which was promptly corrected.

(3.) Learned Counsel objects that five of the witnesses examined were not named in the petition of complaint and that the two witnesses aiamed in the petition of complaint were not examined. The five witnesses who were not named in the petition of complaint as witnesses were the manager of the estate, the tahsildar, a drummer whose evidence was unnecessary, and two goldsmiths of Gobindpur to who Anant Gope had sold some gold at about the time when he was making the advance to Bhairo Lohar. The evidence of the drummer, as I have said, was unnecessary; and as for the goldsmiths, the prosecution might well not have heard of them at the time when the petition was drafted. In any view of the matter, in a case of this nature a complainant is not obliged to confine himself to the evidence of the witnesses named in the petition of complaint. Of the two witnesses who were not examined one was Kali Gope who was named as a drummer, probably a mistake for Kbiru Ohamar, and the other was a hajam who has not been mentioned by anybody in the course of the case. Their evidence would probably have been as useless as that of the drumme.