SHILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision application has been filed on behalf of sole petitioner for setting aside the order dated 4.5.1999 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 73 of 1991 by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge. Dhanbad whereby and where -under the learned appellate Court set -aside the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court and the case was remitted back to the trial Court for a fresh decision with a direction to pass necessary order on two petitions filed in the trial Court.

(2.) IT is submitted that the complainant had sold her pucca house situated on 5 katha 4 chhattaks in Mouza No. 51. being Municipal Holding No. 297/233 (Old H. No. 234) in ward No. 18/20 near Panitanki. Monaitand, Dhanbad to Mukund Sao, Naresh Sao, Rajendra Sao and their mother Dulari Devi by virtue of 2 (two) registered deeds of sale dated 31.3.1987 and 20.5.1987. It is alleged that the appellant and others entering into criminal conspiracy got three sale deeds executed and registered by setting up a fake person (women) and the accused - persons got the said forged deed prepared with intention to grave the property of the complainant. Accordingly the cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 423 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant along with others appeared in the Court below and charge was framed against them. Witnesses were also examined. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the learned Magistrate convicted the appellant for the offences charged against which the appellant preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides, set -aside the judgment of the Court below and the matter was remitted back with a direction to pass necessary order on two petitions already filed in the Court below and thereafter to proceed with the case according to law and pass fresh judgment. Thereafter this revision application has been filed by the sole appellant claiming therein that the learned appelalte Court committed error in remanding back the case, though the forgery as alleged has not been established in absence of the original sale deed and the appellate Court has not considered those materials as well as there is a title suit pending for the said land and the subject matter of the civil suit pending before the civil Court is setting for adjudication as well as the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence of forgery in absence of original documents produced or the signature on the document is verified or examined by the expert and. therefore, the judgment of the appellate Court is fit to be set -aside.

(3.) IT is true that the original sale deeds under challenge have not been produced in the Court below. The sale deeds Ext. 6 series are certified copy of the original sale deeds from which no forgery can be detected. It also appears from the judgment of the appellate Court that he has simply remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh decision after disposing of two petitions already filed during trial and the appellate Court has not gone into the merit of the case. In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the appellate Court at this stage because the matter has already been remanded to the Court below for fresh consideration according to law. In the above facts and circumstance, I also direct the Court below to proceed with the case in accordance with law as per direction made by the appelalte Court without further delay.