DEVENDRA KUMAR ROY Vs. SYED YAR BAKTA CHAUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule was issued by a Division Bench of this Court at the instance of the complainant, Devendra Kumar Roy, calling upon the opposite par. ties to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be set aside. Notice of the matter was given to the Legal Remembrancer of Assam. The petitioner has appeared before us by counsel as have the opposite parties. The Government of Assam is represented by Mr. S.M. Bose, Standing Counsel of the Government of Bengal. The order complained of was one made by Mr. R.R. Khaund, Magistrate, First Class, of Sylhet, on 31 March 1938 whereby he directed that the opposite par. ties herein, the accused persons then before him, should be discharged under Section 494, Criminal P.C.

(2.) The facts leading up to and in connexion with that order are as follows: Opposite party No. 1, Syed Yar Bakht Chaudhury, was indebted to the complainant petitioner and it was agreed some time in 1936 that that indebtedness should be discharged by a conveyance of property to the complainant by Yar Bakht Chaudhury and other persons. A conveyance in pursuance of that agreement was executed by Yar Bakht Chaudhury and other persons and on 9 June 1936 that deed was presented to the Sub-Registrar at Balaganj in Assam for registration in the Registry Office there. The Sub-Registrar is opposite party 6, A. A. Abdul Ali. The deed was sent by registered post from Balaganj Sub-Registry to Habiganj Sub-Registry Office and there acknowledged by one of the executants, Abdul Matin Chaudhury, a pleader. After execution it was sent back on 13 June to the Sub-Registrar's Office at Balaganj. In July another executant at Balaganj admitted execution before the Sub-Registrar. On 16 August, another executant, Jamirunnessa Khatun, refused to admit the execution at Balaganj. As a result of that, appropriate proceedings were taken in the District Sub-Registrar's Office at Sylhet for the purpose of having Jamirunnessa's admission of execution duly recorded, and the deed was sent to Sylhet by registered post for that purpose arriving there on 2nd October.

(3.) It is alleged that on arrival there it was found that the deed had been altered and that two pages - pp. 4 and 52 - had been taken out of the deed and two others inserted in their places, the net resul of the alleged-alterations being that the complainant received under the deed fewer parcels of property than had been assured to him under the deed as originally presented for registration. As a result of that discovery, on 17 October" 1936 the complainant lodged a complaint against the six opposite parties and four others - ten in all. In that complaint were charges under Section 193, I.P.C., fabrication of false evidence, Section 467, forgery, Section 468, forging a valuable security with a view to cheating, and Section 477, fraudulently destroying or defacing a valuable security. There were charges in addition under Section 109, abetment, and Section 120-B, conspiracy to commit those offences. On 29 January 1937 the Magistrate received the sanction of the Government of Assam to prosecute opposite party 6, Abdul Ali, who was, as I have mentioned, the Sub-Registrar of Balaganj, on charges under Secs.81 and 82, Registration Act. Such charges were duly added.