WAMAN DINKAR KELKAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals against convictions recorded at a trial with Assessors by the Sessions Judge of Satara. One appellant is the Inamdar of Patan. The other appellant was the Mamlatdar of Patan. The Inamdar has been convicted of having brought a false claim for rent against his tenants, certain Chambhars, in the Revenue Court of the Mamlatdar. He has also been convicted of having used as genuine a kabuliyat which had been altered by forgery for the purpose of establishing his claim against those Chambhars in the proceedings in the Revenue Court. He has also been convicted of having abetted a corrupt judgment which had been passed against those Chambhars by the appellant Mamlatdar in that Court. The convictions were concurred in by both the Assessors and he was sentenced to concurrent sentences, which had the practical effect of sanding him to prison for five years rigorous imprisonment under Sections 209, 471, 219 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Mamlatdar has been convicted of forgery in that he altered the statement as made by the appellant Inamdar on the first hearing of the revenue case for the purpose of supporting the claim based on the forged kabuliyat. He has also been convicted of having delivered a corrupt judgment against the Chambhars in those proceedings in his Revenue Court. These convictions were concurred in by both the Assessors and he was sentenced to concurrent sentences, which had the practical effect of sending him to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sections 460 and 219 of the Indian Peral Code.

(2.) The appellants raised a preliminary objection to the trial which was, however, overruled by the Sessions Judge. They have repeated that objection here. Their objection is based on these facts. The offences which have been the subject of: trial arose, as has already been indicated, out of judicial proceedings in the Revenue Court of the Mamlatdar. There was an appeal from that decision on the 8th of March 1916 to the Assistant Collector and the decision was, owing to suspicions raised in his mind by the condition of the forged kabuliyat, reversed by him on the 18th of July 1916 as the Appellate Revenue Court. The Assistant Collector in consequence of the suspicions so raised proceeded, on the 28th of July 1916, to call for the explanation of the appellant Inamdar, and, accordingly, on the 10th of October 1916, a report on the matter was submitted to him by the appellant Mamlatdar. The Assistant Collector appears, after consideration of the explanation and the report, to have considered the matter serious and damanding further and closer inquiry. He, accordingly on the 7th of March 1917, applied for the assistance of the Criminal Investigation Department from the District Magistrate. This assistance was granted and on the 2nd of July 1917 a full report was submitted to him by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. After considering ail the matters before him he then passed an order referring the matter for inquiry to the nearest First Class Magistrate under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The result was that the appellants were committed to take their trial before the Sessions Court of Satara.

(3.) The appellants upon these facts urge in support of their objection that even if the offence was brought under notice in the judicial proceeding of the Assistant Collector as regards the appellant Inamdar, it was not brought to notice as regards the appellant Mamlatdar. It has further been urged that the whole of the preliminary inquiry ought to have been made by the Assistant Collector and that he was functus officio after having made his reference to the District Magistrate and had no longer any jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It has also been urged that there was delay in proceeding under that section and that that delay was fatal to his jurisdiction in accordance with certain rulings which have been quoted before us of the Madras and Calcutta High Courts.