KARTICK CHANDRA BISWAS Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This rule must be-discharged for the following reasons.

(2.) This rule was issued by my learned brothers Mitter, J., and S.K. Ghose, J., on 30th September 1929, on the application of three persons, viz., Kartick Chandra biswas, Bisheswar Biswas and Bhubaneswar Biswas. The matter of the application on which that rule was issued came up before this Court on a previous occasion in a slightly different form and in order to understand and appreciate the order that we propose to make, it is necessary to set out briefly, the circumstances giving rise to the present application.

(3.) In the year 1927 there were two criminal cases in which the petitioners or some of them were one of the parties and one Ramkrishna Saha or his men were the other party. These cases ended in a compromise and the result was that the proceedings in those cases terminated on 28 July 1927. In those proceedings a certified copy of a municipal plan had been filed on behalf of the said Ramkrishna Saha. This certified copy, it is alleged, was taken out by some person or persons, signing as or for Ramkrishna Saha on a receipt given for the purpose. The executant of the receipt was identified as Ramkrishna Saha by a pleader named Mr. Nares Chandra Sen. This took place on 25 May 1928. In August 1928, Ramkrishna Saha made an application to the Chief Presidency Magistrate asking for an enquiry into the matter, his complaint being that his name had been forged on the receipt aforesaid and the plan had been taken out by somebody not himself. This was followed up by another application made to the Chief Presidency Magistrate on 9 October 1928, in which he went into greater details and stated that Kartick Biswas and others had tampered with the original plan that was in the custody of the Calcutta Corporation and having done, that they removed the certified copy of the plan that was lying with the record of the police cases referred to above by giving a false receipt and with the false identification of the pleader Mr. Naresh Chandra Sen. On this petition the learned Chief Presidency Magistrats, after examining the complainant Ramkrishna Saha and after certain preliminary orders which he passed, eventually issued warrants against the three petitioners under Secs.417, 419, 420, 109, I.P.C. Thereafter the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate commenced an enquiry into the matter. In the course of the proceedings the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate came to entertain some doubt as to whether a complaint by Dr. Sarbadhikary was necessary in a case of this kind but eventually thought it was. On 9 January 1929, he expressed himself thus: The forgery was actually a receipt for taking back the document but it appears, however, to be probably within the moaning of Section 195(c) in respect of the document that was put in evidence.