Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Santi Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1920)ILR42All130
AppellantEmperor
RespondentSanti Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, section 195 - sanction to prosecute--alteration in a document filed before an assistant collector in his administrative capacity--certificate of age produced by candidate for post of patwari. - .....collector to be appointed patwari in place of a former patwari who had died. he attached to that application a certificate of the 'upper primary class' which was dated the 16th of may, 1917. in that his age appears as fifteen years and nine months. a complaint was lodged in the court of the committing magistrate by one of the zamindars of the village charging the accused with fabricating this document or at any rate, using it knowing it to be fabricated. the court below has found that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused and has committed him to the court of session. two grounds are taken in revision against this commitment. first of all it is said that sanction under section 195 of the code of criminal procedure is a condition necessarily precedent to the.....
Judgment:

Ryves, J.

1. This is an application in revision, asking this Court to quash a commitment to the Court of Session under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the applicant applied to the Collector to be appointed patwari in place of a former patwari who had died. He attached to that application a certificate of the 'upper primary class' which was dated the 16th of May, 1917. In that his age appears as fifteen years and nine months. A complaint was lodged in the court of the committing Magistrate by one of the zamindars of the village charging the accused with fabricating this document or at any rate, using it knowing it to be fabricated. The court below has found that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused and has committed him to the Court of Session. Two grounds are taken in revision against this commitment. First of all it is said that sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a condition necessarily precedent to the institution of the case. It seems to me Section 195 has nothing whatever to do with the present case. The application was made to the Collector under Chapter III of the Land Revenue Act. I think it was made in his administrative capacity entirely and that he was not acting in any way as a court.

2. The next ground taken is that the certificate was not used dishonestly and could not in any case mislead the Collector. The object of putting in the certificate, it is quite obvious, was to induce the Collector to believe the statement that the applicant was a major, that is, 18 years of age. The certificate, even as altered, does not show that the applicant had reached the age of 18. It only made him 17 years and some months of age. Further, it has been said that the Collector has come to the conclusion that the applicant was in fact 18 years of age and therefore the document even if altered could not possibly deceive him. It seems to me that these are matters which may be considered at the trial, but I do not think that they would justify me at this stage in quashing the commitment. If the document was a forged document and if the forgery was intended to make out the applicant's age was approximately 18 years then the intention of the applicant seems to be quite clear. I will not interfere.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //