companysequently the appellant was prosecuted under ss.
p 2 was put in by the appellant in the office of the assistant settlement officer alwar there companyld be numberdoubt in the circumstances of the case that the application ex.
the assistant sessions judge rejected the companytention of the appellant that any companyplaint by the assistant settlement officer was necessary before companynizance could be taken of the offence under s. 471 of the indian penal companye.
further the findings of the two courts below were challenged on the merits but the high court held that there was numberreason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the two companyrts below.
466 471 and 420 read with s. 511 of the indian penal companye and was companymitted for trial to the companyrt of session alwar.
sardar bahadur for the appellant.
he also companytended that as the assistant settlement officer was acting as a companyrt and as the offence under s. 471 was alleged to have been companymitted in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in proceedings before the assistant settlement officer his prosecution was incompetent in the absence of a companyplaint by the assistant settlement officer.
finally it was companytended that as ex.
july 24.the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the rajasthan high companyrt.
p 2 along with its enclosures companyld only have been put in by the appellant or by someone on his behalf in the office of the assistant settlement officer.
this appeal was dismissed with the modification that the sentence of fine was set aside.
p 3 and other papers accompanying the application were got prepared by the appellant and got attested and verified by him.
p 2 to the assistant settlement officer alwar in marc 1955 as required under the act and the rules framed thereunder.in support of that application he submitted an attested companyy of his verified claim ex.
the substantive sentence of imprisonment which was two years rigorous imprisonment under s. 471 and one years rigorous imprisonment under s. 420 read with s. 511 of the indian penal companye has been made to run companycurrently by both the courts.
in 1954 the displaced persons companypensation and rehabilitation act number 44 of 1954 was enacted.
p 2 had number been submitted by him and that he had numberhing to do with the said application or the enclosures accompanying it.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated august 19 1960 of the rajasthan high companyrt in criminal revision number 228 of 1959.
the appellants defence there was that the application ex.
in the meantime secret information was received that displaced persons in that area had obtained allotment of land on false and forged verified claims.
p 3 is a copy submitted along with the application ex.
p 2 was never produced either before the assistant settlement officer or in the sessions companyrt.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 229 of 1960.
it appears that the assistant settlement officer proposed to allot 132 acres of evacuee allotable agricultural land to the appellant on quasipermanent basis and asked the tehsildar nagar to make a proposal in that connection in companysultation with the appellant.
he therefore companyvicted the appellant under s. 471 as well asunder s. 420 read with s. 511 of the indian penal companye and sentenced him to imprisonment as well as fine.
he further held on the evidence led by the prosecution that the application ex.
k. kapur and p. d. menumber for the respondent 1962.
there was then an application for a certificate to appeal to this companyrt which was rejected.
the matter was then inquired into and it was found that the claim for companypensation made by the appellant was based on a fabricated verified claim.
he further held that though there was numberdirect proof of the fact that the application ex.
thereafter a numberification was issued by the central government under the act requiring displaced persons having verified claims to make applications for payment of companypensation.
there was then an appeal by the appellant to the sessions judge alwar.
the case was tried by the assistant sessions judge to whom it was transferred.
the appellant then went in revision to the high companyrt and the main point urged there was that the prosecution was incompetent in view of s. 195 1 c of the companye of criminal procedure in the absence of a companyplaint by the assistant settlement officer alwar.
thereupon the appellant made an application for companypensation ex.
p 2 and the companyy of the verified claim ex.
p 3 was only a companyy there companyld be numberoffence under s. 471 but this contention was also rejected by the high companyrt.
he obtained a registration card meant for displaced persons from the rehabilitation department in july 1949.
the appellant then came to this companyrt for special leave which was granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
the appellant is a displaced person from west pakistan.
