MEAJAN HOWLADAR Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Bakarganj under Section 307, Criminal P.C., against the verdict of the jury in a case in which four persons were charged with offences under Secs.467 and 471, I.P.C. One of these persons Milanjan Bibi was acquitted by the Judge in agreement with the unanimous verdict of the jury. The verdict of the jury as regards the remaining three accused was by a majority of 3 : 2 that they were not guilty of the offences charged. The learned Sessions Judge finding himself unable to agree with the verdict has referred the case to this Court. In para. 3 of his letter of reference he says that he is of opinion that the verdict both as regards the fact of forgery and the verdict as regards Raham Ali are not, as he expresses it, in accordance with the evidence. I should like to point out at the outset that this appears to indicate some misconception of his duty on the part of the learned Sessions Judge. It is not contemplated that a Sessions Judge, who does not happen to agree with the verdict of a jury, should necessarily make a reference to this Court, especially where pure questions of fact are involved, which are matters for the decision of the jury and the jury alone. The ground upon which this reference really seems to rest is that the learned Sessions Judge came to a conclusion on the evidence which was different from that arrived at by the jury. But that as I have already said cannot furnish any justification for a reference under Section 307 unless there is something to show that the verdict of the jury was manifestly wrong and definitely contrary to the weight of the evidence.

(2.) The learned Sessions Judge in his letter while inviting us to discard the evidence of certain witnesses on the ground that they cannot be relied upon has expressed the opinion that the case has been satisfactorily proved by the evidence of three witnesses. In para. 5 of his letter he says that: In my opinion the evidence of those three witnesses is sufficient to prove satisfactorily that the deed in question in this case is a forgery.

(3.) Now the three witnesses in question are P. W. 8, who is a stamp vendor named Munshi Mobarak Ali, P. W. 2 Taher Ali Howladar and P. W. 1, a hand-writing expert named Henry Bennett.