SK ASABUDDIN Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was convicted by the unanimous verdict of the jury of an offence punishable under Section 466, I.P.C. He is a clerk in the service of the Midnapore Municipality. The prosecution arose in the following way: A certain person named Gajendra Nath Pakhira instituted a title suit against one Tarapada Maity on 12 September 1934. A decree-on compromise was passed on 24 November. On 18 December an application was filed by one Nirada Dasi under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil P.C. Her case was that Tarapada was a minor and that the summons had not, therefore, been properly served. This application was dismissed on 16 February 1935. On 14 March 1935, this Nirada Dasi, describing herself as the guardian of Tarapada, instituted a title suit in order to get the compromise decree set aside on the ground of Tarapada's minority. On her behalf a certified copy of an entry in the register of births maintained by the Municipality was filed purporting to show that Tarapada was born on 26 May 1918. The suit was dismissed and a prosecution was lodged with respect to the entry in. this birth register.

(2.) Now it is only necessary to look at the register of births to see that the entry in question cannot be genuine. It is not made in the register at all. It is written out on a plain piece of paper and then pasted on the appropriate page. This entry is to the effect that the birth was reported by the head vaccinator who obviously had nothing to do with the matter. We do not suppose that any jury would have failed to reach the conclusion that this forgery was made for the purpose of bolstering up the case brought by Nirada Dasi. The other side also appears to have resorted to the creation of evidence in the form of a report by the peon who served the summons to the effect that at the time of service Tarapada informed him that he was a major. When the peon was asked in cross examination to explain why he made this irrelevant inquiry he stated that Tarapada appeared to be a dwarf and so his suspicion was aroused. After an inquiry the petitioner was put upon his trial before the Assistant Sessions Judge of Midnapore. As I have already stated, the jury were unanimous in their opinion and the learned Judge sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years. An appeal to the Sessions Court was summarily dismissed and this Rule was obtained from our learned brother who presided over the Vacation Bench.

(3.) Various points have been taken in support of the Rule. One question that the jury had to decide, was whether they were satisfied that the forgery was done by the appellant. He himself suggested that it might have been done by one of the other clerks. That part of the learned Judge's charge that deals with this aspect of the ease has been criticised on the ground that be did not put the evidence clearly before the jury. Now the evidence briefly is this :-The appellant was the clerk who was in charge of this register throughout the time at which this forgery must have been done. It is true that he had an assistant who might have done it but the circumstantial evidence was put forward before the jury by the learned Judge very clearly indeed. He might have stressed it against the petitioner more strongly than he actually did. Then there was the evidence of a handwriting expert who compared the forged entry with some admitted handwriting of the petitioner and he expressed the opinion that they were identical. In addition to this the prosecution examined one of his fellow clerks who expressed the opinion that the forgeries were in the handwriting of the petitioner. The evidence was put before the jury in a satisfactory way. We have ourselves no difficulty in understanding why the jury unanimously were of opinion that this entry was actually made by the petitioner. In view of this evidence any other decision would have been perverse.