MANBODH SINGH Vs. JHABOOLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUB -Judge Sohagpur, filed a complaint against Jhaboolal, Debisa and Premchand in the Court of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sohagpur from whose file the case was transferred to the file of Mr. Steinhoff, Magistrate, First Class, Hoahangabad, who, on 18th February, 1928, discharged the accused. Manbodh Singh filed a revision application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad, which was rejected on 30th June 1928. He has now moved this Court by means of a revision application and prays that the District Magistrate be directed to hold a further inquiry into the case. The first point which was urged was that the joint trial of the three accused was contrary to law and illegal, and a separate trial of each accused should be ordered. In this connexion the rulings of this Court reported as Emperor v. Balwant Singh [1908] 4 N.L.R. 71 and Gunwant v.

(2.) EMPEROR [1917] 13 N.L.R. 35 were cited. In Emperor v. Balwant Singh [1908] 4 N.L.R. 71 there was a joint trial of six persons, based on a medley of unconnected transactions some joint and others several, and in Gunwant v. Emperor [1917] 13 N.L.R. 35 the scribe and the attesting witnesses of an alleged forged document were tried together. In both the cases it was held that the joint trial was illegal. But these cases have no bearing on the present case, in which there has been no trial at all but only an inquiry. As pointed out by Drake Brockman, J.C. in Manna v. Emperor [1913] 9 N.L.R. 42.:

(3.) THE above facts, if correct, may raise a suspicion against the correctness of the date mentioned in the receipt but do not prove conclusively that the chitti was really antedated. There is no reference in the sale-deed about the chitti but there is a reference about a previous agreement which perhaps, was meant for the chitti, Ex. P-5 which is a list of the tenants who were in arrears does not really prove anything. Jhaboolal denied the fact that the Ex. P-5 was in his handwriting and there is no independent evidence on the point except the statement of Kamod Singh who stated that a portion of Ex. P-5 was written by Jhaboolal. Under the circumstances of this case no reliance could be placed on the statement of Kamod Singh on that point, when no other evidence was adduced on the point. The evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution was carefully considered and the non-applicants were discharged, because a prima facie case was not made out against them. The order of discharge is neither perverse nor incorrect and, therefore, no interference is necessary.