465/ 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
On November 12, 1957 prosecution applied to the Session Judge under s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the prosecution of Dr. Dutt under s. 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
P 71 to ether with a statement which was marked Ex.
S. R. Chari, A. N. Sinha and A. K. Nag, for the appellant.
K. Jain and O. P. Rana, for the respondent.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 12, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No.
The prosecution, on the other hand, companytended that Dr. Dutt was being prosecuted for forgery of the diploma and for using the said forged document and, therefore, the offence fell within ss.
On October 26, 1958 a charge sheet under s. 465/471, Indian Penal Code was filed against Dr. Dutt in the Court of the Judicial Officer III, Hardoi by the C.I.D. Police, Lucknow.
Government did number appeal against the acquittal and that matter ended there.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. Dr. S. Dutt who appeals to this Court by special leave against the judgment and order of Mr. Justice Misra of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench dated February 12, 1965 was examined as an expert witness by the defence in a Sessions trial State v. Matadin and Ors.
90 of 1965.
Mr. Shyam Narain earlier had deposed himself as an expert witness for the prosecution.
S.T. No.
60 of 1957 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi.
Dr. Dutts testimony ran companynter to the testimony of Mr. Shyam Narain and the credentials of Dr. Dutt were challenged.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
He was cross examined inter alia about this claim by the District Government companynsel who was assisted by one Mr. Shyam Narain, Deputy Superintendent, Police C.I.D. Lucknow.
Dr. Dutt produced the aforesaid diploma and it was taken on file as Ex.
Dr. Dutt claimed to hold a diploma from the Imperial College of Science and Technology, London to the effect that he had specialised in the subject of criminology.
3 Dr. S. Dutt has companymitted forgery of certain diploma produced in this Honble Court during the companyrse of his evidence and he has used these forged documents as genuine.
260 of 1963.
This application was rejected on November 12, 1957.
The Judge asked Dr. Dutt to produce all his academic diplomas and certifi cates for his inspection.
The Sessions Judge pronounced judgment on October 29, 1957 acquitting Matadin and the other accused.
The Additional District Magistrate Judicial rejected the companytentions of Dr. Dutt and held that there was numberbar to the trial under s. 465/471, Indian Penal Code.
The order of the High Court was pronounced on February 12, 1965 and the present appeal is against that order.
He passed strictures on the prosecution and did number accept the evidence of Mr. Shyam Narain.
It was stated in the application that the defence witness No.
The case went before the Additional District Magistrate Judicial Hardoi on transfer and at the companymencement of the trial Dr. Dutt objected that he companyld number be legally prosecuted as the alleged facts disclosed an offence under s. 193, Indian Penal Code and a companyplaint in writing of the companyrt was required under s. 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before companynizance companyld be taken.
Dr. Dutt filed revisions against the order in the Court of Sessions and in the High Court but without success.
