Ranjit Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Surya Prasad, J.—This is a criminal revision against the judgment and order dated 14th December, 1987 passed by the then VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1983 Ranjit Singh v. State partly allowing the appeal and partly dismissing the appeal, convicting the Appellant-revisionist under Sections 466 and 468 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to two years'' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- for each of the offences under Sections 466 and 468 Indian Penal Code bat granting him the benefits of Section 4 of the U.P. First Offender''s Act and ordering him to file a personal bond of Rs. 2000/- and one reliable local surety of the like amount for keeping peace and good behaviour for a period of two years and in the event of any breach in the conditions of the bond, to servo oat the sentences referred to above and thereby confirmed the judgment and order of the trial court dated 25th February, 1985 passed in Criminal Case No. 3020 of 1976 State of U.P. v. Ranjit Singh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also reduced the sentences under Sections 466 and 468 Indian Penal Code from three years'' RI to two years'' RI and a fine of Rs, 500/-.

The facts giving rise to this criminal revision briefly stated are as follows:

The revisionist-accused was working as Personal Assistant (Second Man) of the then Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha of this High Court. In those days ball applications used to be heard by the said Hon''ble Judge in Court No. 16-A criminal case State of U.P. v. Khalawan and Ors. u/s 302 Indian Penal Code was pending in the court of the then Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Allahabad. An order dated 10th December, 1971 granting bail to the co-accused Khelawan was alleged to have been pass d by the then Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lai Sinha in the sale criminal case. The accused Khalawan was ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount. That order was received by the then Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Allahabad. Consequently he released the co-accused Khalawan after his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount, on the basis of the said bail order. The co-accused Kalloo in the said criminal case was already released on bail. The co-accused Kalloo contacted one Sri Atma Nand Mishra, who was also working la this High Coast, with regard to the release of the other accused on ball and requested him for obtaining a copy of the bail order regarding other accused Khalawan. Consequently Atma Nand Mishra had a talk la Shri Kunj Behari Lal Bhatnagar, Bench Secretary, at his residence in that regard, Shri Kunj Behari Lai Bhatnagar told him (Atma Nand Mishra) that he would tell him about the same after verifying the relevant register of the Court, next day. Sri Bhatnagar looked into the relevant register regarding ball application, next day, but ha found that there was no endorsement any where regarding the passing of any such bail order la respect of the accused Khelawan. He called for the nail application from the office and on the receipt of the same, he found that the order was net in his hand-writing nor did he pat his signature. The order, however, (sic)aataiaed the initial of the then Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lal Sinha There arose suspicion in his (Bhatnagar''s) mind. Consequently be placed the aforesaid record before the Hon''ble Mr. /outlet; Jag Mohan Lal Sinha. The Hon''ble Judge cease to the conclusion that the alleged ball order dated 10th December, 1971 was not passed by him nor did he put his signature/initial thereto. But the said order was, according to him, prepared after committing forgery. He showed the bail order to the Bench Secretary, Sri Kunj Behari Lai Bhatnagar, Syed Nasir Rasa and his bath Personal Assistants Sri Kamla Prasad Asthana and Sri Ranjit Singh. He had suspicion that Sri Ranjit Singh had written the said ball order. Sri Ranjit Singh had, however, denied the same The then Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lat Sinha wrote a letter dated 16th December, 1971 to the Registrar of the Hon''ble Court in regard to the above facts and directed him (Registrar) to obtain information from the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Allahabad whether the accused Rhelawan was released on ball. If the accused Khelawan was not released, the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) be directed to wait for farther orders, the aforesaid ball application of accused Khelawan was ordered to be listed on 17th December, 1971. Oh that day, the then Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lai Sinha passed the following order:

The order dated 10-12-71 purporting to grant ball to Khelawan s/o Rata Autar resident of Meerapur, P.S. Khnldabad, District Allahabad is not a genuine order. Sri R. P Agrawal, Advocate, who purports to have signed the application, made a statement before this Court that he did not present this application nor was it ever argued by him before this Court. Enquiry has already been ordered. Registrar may send a letter to the ADM (J.) Allahabad forthwith to cancel the bonds said to have been famished by the applicant and secure arrest of Khelawan. Ha may be seat thereafter to jail custody.

Let this file be now sent to the Registrar, who is also seized of the enquiry, in a sealed cover.

Sri B.C. Jauhari the then Registrar of this Court, reported the matter through a letter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, v. P. Criminal investigation Department, Lncknew, on the basis of which a chick (first information) report was prepared and a ease was registered against the accused-revisionist Ranjit Singh under Sections 417, 420, 466, 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code. The investigation ensued and after the completion of the investigation into the case, a charge-sheet was submitted against him. The charges under Sections 417, 466, 420, 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code were ultimately flamed against him The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses including the then Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lai Sinha and relied upon certain documents is support of the case against the accused-revisionist, Ranjit Singh.

The Revisionist Ranjit Singh pleaded not guilty. He has state! that all the allegations relating to the charges levelled against him la particular are wholly wrong and incorrect. He has asserted that he has been falsely implicated an account of enmity and that the witnesses hate also deposed against him for that reason. He has epiphytically denied having committed the alleged forgery in respect of the preparation of the disputed ball order. He has specifically stated that Sri R. P. Agrawal Advocate and Sri Kunj Behari Bhatnagar, the then Beach Secretary have committed the alleged forgery in collusion with such other He has, however, not adduced any oral evidence in support of his contentions.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on record, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad convoluted the accessed-revisionist Ranjit Singh under Sections 417, 428, 466, 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous Imprisonment for six months u/s 467 Indian Penal Code, two years rigorous Imprisonment u/s 420 Indian Penal Code and three years rigorous Imprisonment each under Sections 466, 467 and 468 Indian Penal Code. la the aforesaid Criminal Case No. 3020 of 1976 State of U.P. v. Ranjit Singh

The accused revisionist filed appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 65 of 1985 Ranjit Singh v. State of U.P., against the above judgment and order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The then learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad, disposed of the said criminal appeal vide his Impugned and order while partly allowing and partly dismissing the appeal as mentioned earlier. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment and order, the revisionist-accused Ranjit Singh preferred this revision against the same.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. the first and the second charges framed against the accused-revisionist on 8th May, 1976 appear to be relevant for the purposes of this revision and, therefore, the same are reproduced as under:

Firstly, that you on the 10th day of December, 1971. In the capacity of Steno to the Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jag Mohan Lai Sinha, prepared ball order by making forgery in the record, and thereby committed as offence punishable u/s 466 Indian Penal Code; secondly, that you on the same day, time and place, commuted forgery, intending that the document forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 468 Indian Penal Code.

The accused-revisionist Ranjit Singh, cannot, legally speaking, be held to have committed the alleged forgery. Section 463 Indian Penal Code, which defines forgery is reproduced as under:

463 Forgery-Whoever makes any false ''document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

The relevant portion of Section 464 Indian Penal Code appears to be necessary in this connection. This section reads, inter alia as under:

Making a false document J-A person is said to make a false document.

First-Who dishonestly or fraudulently makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document, or makes any mark denoting the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that sack document or part of a document was made, signed, sealed or executed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed, or at a time at which he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed or executed; or

Secondly....

A bare reading of the above sections would show that a document can be legally a document only when it is made, signed and sealed by one. Bet the revisionist-accused has not, la the instant case signed the disputed ball order. Nor is there any evidence to prove that he has made the alleged initial of the then Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha, below the bail order in question. These facts cannot be said to be in dispute on the basis of evidence on record. In the absence of the signature or initial of the accused-revisionist Ranjit Singh below the bail order and in the absence of the alleged initial of the then Hon''ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Lai Sinha having been made by him (revisionist-accused), the bail order cannot be said to constitute a document. in the absence of a document, the commission of the offence of forgery cannot be envisaged.

Section 23 Indian Penal Code reads as under:

"Wrongful gain"-"Wrongful gain" is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.

"Wrongful loss"-"Wrongful loss" is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.

Gaining wrongfully: Losing wrongfully-A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to lose wrongfully when such-person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived of property.

Sections 24 and 25 Indian Penal Code are respectively reproduced as under:

"Dishonestly": Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing "dishonestly".

"Fraudulently": A person is said to do a thing fraudulently If he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.

There is no evidence on record to show as to whom the revisionist-accused Ranjit Singh had intentionally caused wrongful gain or wrongful loss by preparing the ball order in question. Similarly there is no evidence on record to show as to whom he had intentionally defrauded by making bail order fraudulently. In other words, there is nothing on record to establish that the revisionist-accused had made a false document dishonestly or fraudulently and, therefore, the question of his having committed forgery does not arise.

The learned VII Additional Sessions Judge has made the following observations at page 53 of the typed copy of his impugned judgment and order, which is on record, as under:

No doubt expert has not given any opinion about the alleged forged signatures of the Hon''ble lodge bat keeping in view the provisions of Section 464 Indian Penal Code the accused can be held liable for making the part document fraudulently.

Sections 463 and 464 Indian Penal Code, if read together, would show that they do not say anything about a part document. Therefore, the above observations made by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge is against the law.

The charges under Sections 466 and 468 Indian Penal Code as framed against the revisionist-accused have already been quoted. While referring to the above charges, the learned Counsel for the revisionist-accused has argued that these charges are vague and ambiguous in several respects and that the bail order in question does not constitute a document as the same was not signed by the accused-revisionist and, therefore, the revisionist-accused cannot be convicted under Sections 466 or 468 Indian Penal Code or sentenced thereunder. His contention does not appear to be devoid of force.

In the result the revision is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside The revisionist-accused is acquitted of the charges under Sections 466 and 468 Indian Penal Code as well.

it is not out of place to mention that the incident took place on 10th December, 1971. The charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-revisionist nearly four years after the incident. The case has been pending against him for over two decades. He has been placed under suspension. He must have been reduced to a pauper. Not only this, but he most have also suffered pangs of poverty for such a long period, during these hard-days. His poor plight can, therefore, be anybody''s guess. In view of all this, the conscience of the court dictates it to categorically express that the grant of benefit of Sections 4 of the U.P. First Offender''s Act by the then learned VII Additional Sessions Judge in his impugned judgment and order cannot be treated as punishment in relation to the revisionist-accused Ranjit Singh''s suspension and the revisionist, cannot be treated as suspended from service. He will, on the other hand be deemed to have been in continuous service without any break. He will, therefore, be immediately paid his full any and D A etc. during the period of his suspension in compliance with the observations made in this judgment.