SHANKAR LAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the learned Chief Justice directing the Registrar of the High Court to make a complaint against the applicant in Civil Revision No. 85 of 1935, Shankar Lal, for offences under Secs.193 and 471, I.P.C., to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction. Shankar Lal was the defendant in a suit filed upon the basis of a promissory note which was executed on 14 October 1928. The suit was filed on 8 February 1934. In his defence, the defendant pleaded that two payments had been made towards the amount due under the promissory-note, one of Rs. 400 on 24 July 1933 and one of Rs. 250 on 8 December 1933. The plaintiff averred that no such payments had been made by the defendant. The defendant supported his averments in regard to these payments by the production of two receipts Ex. A and B, which purport to bear the signatures of the plaintiff. A handwriting expert in the trial Court deposed that the signatures on Ex. A and Ex. B were forgeries. The Small Cause Court Judge who heard the case recorded his opinion as follows: Handwriting expert reported on 19 December 1934 that the receipts Exs. A and B do not bear signatures of the plaintiff. He was cross- examined but was not shaken a bit. The witnesses of the defendant do not appear to be truthful. Considering all the evidence on the record I hold that Exs. A and B are forged documents and the allegation of the defendant that by means of these two receipts Bs. 650 were paid to the plaintiff is wholly incorrect.

(2.) Against the order of the Small Cause Court Judge the defendant filed an application in revision. This application came before the learned Chief Justice, who directed further inquiry in regard to the signature on Ex. A. The handwriting expert furnished a further report and upon a consideration of that report and the entire evidence in the case the learned Chief Justice came to the conclusion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that he should under Section 476, Criminal P.C., direct proceedings against the defendant. He accordingly passed the order above referred to. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that we should not proceed to dispose of this appeal since the receipt Ex. A was not before us. He maintained that if the receipt were here he would be in a position to satisfy us that there was no foundation for the finding that the signature thereon was a tracing of the admitted signature of the plaintiff. We do not consider that there is any force in his contention. We have to decide whether upon the evidence which was before the learned Chief Justice there was a prima facie case for directing proceedings under Section 476, Criminal P.C. We are satisfied that there was such a prima facie case. There was the evidence of the handwriting expert in the trial Court and there was the report of the same handwriting expert which was furnished to this Court. Furthermore, the learned Chief Justice had the opportunity of comparing the signatures upon the receipt with the admitted signature of the plaintiff. In these circumstances we consider that it is unnecessary to recall the receipt from the Magistrate to whom it appears to have been sent and that we may dispose of this matter.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant took the plea that this Court has no jurisdiction in an application in civil revision to order proceedings under Section 476 in respect of the alleged offences under Secs.193 and 471, I.P.C. His argument was that inasmuch as the offences alleged, to have been committed have been committed in the Small Cause Court, the only Court which has jurisdiction to direct proceedings under Secs.193 and 471, I.P.C., is the trial Court or the Court of the District Judge in view of the terms of Section 195, Criminal P.C. In support of this contention learned Counsel referred to the provisions of Section 476-A, Criminal P.C. In our opinion there is no force in this argument. Offences under Secs.193 and 471, I. P.C., were no doubt committed in the trial Court, i.e. if Exs. A and B are forgeries. It cannot be contended however that these offences were not committed in this Court when the applicant relied upon Ex. A and Ex. B in his application in civil revision. Section 193 is in the following terms: 193. Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment, etc....