JAGDISH SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have been convicted under Section 193 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one month's rigorous imprisonment each. Their appeal has been dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Saran.

(2.) The money, Rs. 4000 due on a mortgage was deposited in the Court of a Munsif at Chapra to the credit of Ram Chander Singh and another, sons of the mortgagee, Sahodra Kuer, under Section 83, T.P. Act. An application was then made to the Munsif to depute a special peon to serve the notice of deposit The notice (Ex. 3) was made over to a Court peon (P.W. 6) for service, and the peon duly put in a service report to the effect that he could not find Ram Chander's brother, but he effected service on Ram Chander Singh who took the notice for himself and his brother, but refused to give a receipt. Laldip Singh attested the service report as identifier, and the three petitioners, attested as witnesses, one of them being the chaukidar. Subsequently, Ram Chander appeared before the Munsif and filed an objection that on the date of the alleged service he was not at the place specified, Piprahia, but at Bagha in the district of Champaran. After enquiry, the petitioners and the identifier were all prosecuted and convicted. The appeal of all four was dismissed, but the identifier has not come up to this Court in revision.

(3.) I have been asked to go into the evidence on the question as to whether Ram Chander could have actually been at Piprahia at 7 A.M. on the 1 of September when notice was reported to have been served. But this is a pure question of fact. There is the clearest finding of fact by the Court below that the evidence on record leaves no room for doubt that Ram Chander Singh could not have been at Piprahia. This finding cannot be disturbed in revision.