Sukh Devi.
She denied having ever known Raghunath Prasad but admitted that she knew Viswanath and Pyarelal, appellants.
On July 3, 1961 Raghunath Prasad got a sale deed executed by an unknown lady in respect of the properties of Smt.
He was cross examined at some length.
Ka10 in Ms presence.
Raghunath Prasad, appellant, is a resident of village Taranpur whereas accused Viswanath and Pyarelal are residents of village Itkhuda.
Sukh Devi.
Smt Sukh Devi appeared as P.W. 8 and stated on oath that she had never executed any sale deed relating to the land in question in favour of anyone.
Raghunath Prasad was further charged under Section 471, I.P.C. for having fraudulently and dishonestly used in the companyrt of Tehsildar, Pukhrayan, District Kanpur the impugned sale deed as genuine which he knew or had reason to believe to be forged.
Sukh Devi in this case sent to the Government Fingerprint Expert were hers.
It was in these circumstances that, a forged sale deed was secured by Raghunath Prasad with the aid and abetment of his two companyappellants.
On appeal the High Court took a different view and felt companyvinced that the specimen signatures taken in companyrt were those of Smt.
Shri Malkhan Singh, Government Fingerprint Expert, appeared as P.W. 2 and stated that after companyparison of the specimen thumb impression of Smt.
She also denied having gone before the Sub Registrar for getting any such deed registered.
Shri Shiv Baran Singh who was the companynsel for the accused in the companymitment companyrt, it may be recalled, appeared in the trial companyrt as P.W. 5 and deposed that Smt.
She expressly swore that she had never purchased any stamp paper for execution of such sale deed number had she got any such documents scribed by any petition writer, number did she go to the Tehsil office or anywhere else in companynection with the execution of such a deed.
This view was taken on the basis of Emperor v. Kushal Pal Singh, On appeal by the companyplainant Smt.
Sukhdei companyplainant were obtained in the Sub ordinate Court.
The trial companyrt, it may be pointed out at this stage, was influenced by the fact that the specimen thumb impression of Smt Sukh Devi had number been taken in the presence of the presiding officer of the companyrt and it was mainly on this ground that her specimen thumb impressions were held number to have been proved to be hers.
Sukh Devi given on this point did number impress the trial companyrt.
Sukh Devi.
The point on which the High Court granted certificate of fitness related to the requirement of the companyplaint by the companyrt as companytemplated by Section 195 1 c , Cr.
The prosecution case was on this view thrown out and the accused persons acquitted.
Sukh Devi before the Sub Registrar in the registration office at Bhognipur knowing that she was number in fact Smt.
5 and 7 respectively to prove that the specimen thumb impression of Smt.
In order to appreciate the question arising for our determination we may briefly state the facts giving rise to the appellants prosecution.
Shri Bhairav Prasad Srivastava, the companynsel for the accused in the companymitting companyrt, appeared in the Sessions Court as P.W. 7 and stated on oath that he was the companynsel for the accused persons in the companyrt of Shri J.N. Mehrotra, Special Magistrate as well.
Sukh Devi and Shri Bhairav Prasad Srivastava, companynsel for the accused also appeared in the trial companyrt as P.Ws.
After seeing the sale deed she denied having affixed her thumb impression on it and further denied having ever received any companysideration for any sale of the land in question.
After thus securing a sale deed Raghunath Prasad filed an application in the companyrt of the Tehsildar for mutation of revenue entries in Ms favour and in those proceedings he used the said forged sale deed as genuine knowing it to be forged.
The necessary permission having number been obtained, the prosecution failed on this ground as well.
Pyarelal and Viswanath identified that lady as Smt.
The matter was taken by him unsuccessfully to the highest revenue authorities and indeed he went right upto the High Court on revision but without success.
Sukh Devi, after her success in the High Court, filed a companyplaint against the appellants and an unknown woman whose name was struck off as per order dated December 21, 1961 under Sections 465, 468 and 471, I.P.C. in the companyrt of the judicial officer, Bhognipur which was later transferred to the companyrt of the Sub Maglistrate, Shri J.N. Mehrotra.
Sukh Devi, who, after sometime started living with her brother Muzaji lal in village Itkhuda.
Relying on the evidence of Smt.
Shri Shiv Baran Singh, companynsel for Smt.
P.C. for the appellants prosecution.
Sukh Devi had affixed her thumb impression on Ex.
Sukh Devi and on that of her companynsel and on the fact that the companynsel, for the accused had also signed the paper on which Smt.
This is what he stated on oath Then specimens of the thumb impression of Smt.
One Chhidammi, resident of village Taranpur, died somewhere about 1940 leaving behind his widow Smt.
She further swore that specimens of her thumb impressions had been obtained in the companyrt of the Magistrate for examination by the handwriting expert.
Smt Sukh Devi, on receipt of numberice, resisted Raghunath Prasads application by denying having ever sold the plot in question or having ever executed and got registered the alleged sale deed.
Sukh Devi the High Court went into the evidence and in a well considered judgment came to the companyclusion that the offence under Section 109 read with Section 465, I.P.C. was fully established and sentenced Raghunath Prasad to rigorous imprisonment for one year and Viswanath and Pyarelal to rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
Raghunath Prasads claim for securing the mutation in his favour failed and his prayer was rejected.
After the necessary enquiry the appellants were companymitted for being tried in the Sessions Court.
Sukh Devi The High Court felt, so companyvinced for the reason that on the specimen signatures both the companynsel for the State and for the accused persons had signed as a token of their acceptance that the thumb impression in question was that of the companyplainant.
She had companye to know about the sale deed on receipt of summons from the Tehsildar, Bhognipur where she opposed Raghunath Prasad, appellants application for entering the mutation in his favour.
The evidence of Shri Bhairav Prasad Srivastava, companynsel for the appellant and that of Shri Shiv Baran Singh, companynsel for Smt.
She also deposed about her success right up to the High Court in the companytroversy relating to the mutation.
With respect to the evidence of Shri Bhairav Prasad Srivastava the trial companyrt also observed that it was settled principle of law that an accused is number bound by the admission made by his companynsel.
Sukh Devi.
Sukh Devi which she had inherited from her husband Chhidami.
Sukh Devi with the thumb impression on the disputed sale deed he had companye to the companyclusion that the thumb impressions on the sale deed were number those of Smt.
The unknown lady had been put forward to personate Smt.
So far as the offences under Section 82 d of the Registration Act is companycerned there was the additional ground for acquittal, namely, absence of sanction of the registration authorities for their prosecution under Section 82 of that Act.
Raghunath Prasad was in addition tried for an offence under Section 471, I.P.C. The Second Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge, Kanpur acquitted them of the offences under the Penal Code on the ground that it was number safe to companyvict them on the sole testimony of the companyplainant Smt.
On her denial of the execution of the sale deed Raghunath Prasads application for mutation was rejected.
D. Dua, J. This is an appeal on certificate under Article 134 1 c of the Constitution granted by the Allahabad High Court from its judgment dated March 7, 1969 companyvicting the three appellants for an offence under Section 109 read with Section 465, I.P.C The three appellants Raghunath Prasad, Viswanath and Pyarelal were tried for offences under, inter alia, Sections 114/465, 114/467, 114/468, I.P.C. and Section 82 d of the Indian Registration Act.
