RAM GHULAM SINGH Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Young Sessions Judges get so excited at the evidence of roguery that they miss the main consideration in Sessions trial which is to prove the specific charge against an accused person. Possibly when the learned Judge reaches my age he would be more tolerant.

(2.) The appellant Rim Ghulam Singh a zamindar has been convicted of an offence under Section 468 I.P.C. The long and very able judgment gives information about everything except the charge against Ram Ghulam Singh. After reading the judgment no doubt can remain in any one's mind as to the corruption prevailing in the District Board of Hamirpur, and the corrupt practise of every official connected with that unfortunate body. The reader, however, will be bewildered at these extraneous matters and will fail to discover how the charge of forgery is brought home to the appellant. It, therefore, became the duty of this Court to investigate this matter without the help to which it is entitled of the opinion and relevant observations of the learned Judge. The provisions of Section 468 are: Every person who commits forgery, intending that the documents forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating shall be punished.

(3.) The first consideration, therefore, must be whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the documents produced in Court are forgeries. The documents are seven in number and written on printed forms of "muster-rolls of labourers employed on for the period" and have all the columns filled up. Every form is signed at the bottom by the appellant, who is described in print as the officer in charge of the work. He was selected by the District Board to supervise the work of labourers who were repairing a public road and his duty was to make payment to the labourers and to recover the money from the District Board. It is not apparent for what emoluments or honour he was undertaking this task. He had to prepare these rolls to show which workman worked on what dates and what payments were made to them. It appears that the labourers worked from 1 to 16 December. The rolls are made up in two parts. One part dealt with labourers from 1 to 7 and the second part with labourers from 8 to 16th. They purport to have been paid according to their presence at rates 0-8-0 or 0-4-0 per day on 7 and on 16th. Rolls have been signed as if signed according to the date on the rolls on 7 and on 16th. As information was not available in the judgment of the learned Judge, I enquired of the learned Government Pleader in what respect the documents were forged. His opinion was that the date was different from the date on which they were prepared. That may be so, because it is said by the accused that they are copies from the original. It is, however, not proved that the amount which is represented to have been paid on 7 was paid on some other date.