SHABBIR HASAN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not very clear why persons other than Shabbir Hasan have appealed to this Court. There is no complaint by the District Judge of Moradabad against any person other than Shabbir Hasan. Even if the learned Judge's order of 15th December 1926 be considered to be a complaint, it is only a complaint against Shabbir Hasan. The case of no other person is considered in that order. At the end of the order the District Judge wrote: The papers will be sent to the District Magistrate who will be asked to have the matter investigated by a competent police officer with a view to a criminal prosecution.

(2.) The criminal prosecution can only be of Shabbir Hasan, and not of all and sundry who may be discovered after the police inquiry to have been implicated in the forgery. In my opinion Mr. Radha Kishan was negligent in his duty in not taking action tinder Section 476, Criminal P. C, and passing on the trouble of an inquiry to the District Judge. Under Section 476 an inquiry has to be made by the civil Court. If the civil Court so desires, an inquiry may be ordered by the police, but in that case when the police papers arrive the civil Court has to determine whether it is necessary to take action against particular persons under Section 476. A finding has to be recorded to the effect against each individual person specifically. This is evident from the mention of the treatment of an accused person that the civil Court may either take security from him, or send him in custody to the Magistrate.

(3.) By his order, dated 14 April 1927, the District Judge directed the District Magistrate to treat his order of 15 December as a complaint under Section 195 (1)(c), Criminal P.C. Obviously the District Judge paid no attention to the wording of the statute law which he quoted. Section 195(1)(c) refers only to an offence alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding. It appears that on the basis of that order Babu Raghunandan Kishor, Shabbir Hasan, Sirajuddin and Abdul Aziz are prosecuted when Sirajuddin alone is a party. In fact Section 195 has no application, and the learned Judge ought to have obeyed the directions of law contained in Section 476, Criminal P.C. If the learned Judge desired to take action against persons believed by him to be accomplices in the forgery, he ought to have made a proper inquiry himself or through the police, or through some Court subordinate to him, and, after considering the report of such inquiry, he ought to have recorded a finding separately in the case of every person that it was necessary in the interests of justice that inquiry should be made into a particular offence with respect to that person by a Magistrate. Obviously the District Judge has not taken any action under Section 476.