KUNJO CHAUDHRY Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application on behalf of one Kunjo Chaudhry who has been convicted under Secs.467/109 and 471, Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment under each of the sections, the sentences to run concurrently, but on appeal it has been reduced to 18 months under each count, and the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) It appears that on 10 Baisakh one Nathu Mandal executed a hand note in favour of the petitioner for Rs. 65-7-0. The case for the prosecution was that in Chait 1337 Nathu Mandal paid Rs. 77-8-0 to the petitioner in full satisfaction of the debt but the petitioner refused to return the hand note because Nathu Mandal refused to pay an additional sum of Rs. 5. On 27 March 1935 the petitioner instituted a suit (No. 208) in the Court of Small Causes at Bhagalpur, on the basis of the hand note in question, and he is alleged to have altered the date of the hand note from 10 Baisakh 1336 to 10 Baisakh 1339 so as to avoid the bar of limitation.

(3.) The suit was later on dismissed for default and the petitioner took no steps for restoration of the case. On 4 October 1935, Nathu Mandal filed an application before the Small Cause Court Judge, under Section 476, Criminal P.C., asking the Judge to file a complaint against the petitioner for having abetted commission of forgery with respect to the hand-note in question, and for dishonestly using the hand note as genuine knowing or having reason to believe it to be a forgery. That petition, it now appears, was rejected by the first Court on the ground that the suit in question had been dismissed before the petition was filed. Then there was an appeal to the District Judge, who Bet aside the order of the Small Cause Court Judge, holding that he had erroneously refused to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law, and directed the Small Cause Court Judge to hold a preliminary inquiry to find out if there were sufficient materials to file a complaint against the petitioner. This order was passed on 20 March 1936. The Small Cause Court Judge held an inquiry and filed the complaint on 11 May 1936. In due course the petitioner was committed to the Court of Session for trial, and convicted and sentenced as already stated. The present application is directed against the conviction of the petitioner as the result of the trial.