Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Kashi Shukul and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1916)ILR380All695
AppellantEmperor
RespondentKashi Shukul and anr.
Excerpt:
.....procedure code, section 115--revision--material irregularity. - - the applicants, in their application in revision to this court, contend that the order of the munsif is bad in law inasmuch as it is vague and gives a general direction to the criminal court to try them and convict them on any charge that may be proved. and the direction by the learned munsif to the magistrate, to convict the three applicants of any other offences that may be provied is clearly without jurisdiction, i have read the judgment in the civil suit and i find that there are several statements made by the three applicants and the order of the munsif does not specify in respect of which of the statements he wants the three applicants to be prosecuted for perjury......1911. rameshar misir denied the execution of the chitthi and the receipt of consideration. the learned munsif who tried the civil suit held that the claim was a false one and that the chitthi was not genuine, and the claim was accordingly dismissed on the 16th of february, 1914. several months after, an application was made by rameshar misir for sanction to prosecute the present applicants on charges of perjury and forgery. the application, it is said, was rejected on the 3rd of may, 1915. a notice, however, was issued by the munsif to the present applicants to show cause why they should not be committed to take their trial on the charges of perjury and forgery. the notice was presumably given under section 476 of the criminal procedure code. in the meantime the learned munsif who.....
Judgment:

Muhammad Rafiq, J.

1. This is an application in revision from the order of the Munsif of Gorakhpur, made under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code, directing the prosecution of the applicants on charges under Sections 193, 471 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that Kashi Shukul, one of the applicants, brought a civil suit against Rameshar Misir for the recovery of Rs. 522, principal and interest, on the basis of a chitthi or letter, dated the 16th of March, 1911. Rameshar Misir denied the execution of the chitthi and the receipt of consideration. The learned Munsif who tried the civil suit held that the claim was a false one and that the chitthi was not genuine, and the claim was accordingly dismissed on the 16th of February, 1914. Several months after, an application was made by Rameshar Misir for sanction to prosecute the present applicants on charges of perjury and forgery. The application, it is said, was rejected on the 3rd of May, 1915. A notice, however, was issued by the Munsif to the present applicants to show cause why they should not be committed to take their trial on the charges of perjury and forgery. The notice was presumably given under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the meantime the learned Munsif who had tried the suit and issued the notice was transferred and another Munsif came in his place. He passed an order on the 26th of February, 1916, directing the prosecution of Kashi Shukul under Sections 193, 471 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, of Sarab Sukh under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Cole and of Bhagirath Shukul under Sections 193 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code. He further added that the 'Magistrate will convict the three applicants of any other charge that may be proved.' In his order the learned Munsif did not specify the statements of the three applicants in respect of which he wanted them to be prosecuted for the charges of perjury, nor did he specify the portion of the document in respect of which he was of opinion that Kashi Shukul and Bhagirath Shukul had committed forgery. The applicants, in their application in revision to this Court, contend that the order of the Munsif is bad in law inasmuch as it is vague and gives a general direction to the Criminal Court to try them and convict them on any charge that may be proved. For the opposite party the objection is that this revision is a civil revision and the powers of this Court on the Civil side are narrower than those on the Criminal side. The omission by the learned Munsif in his order to specify the foundations of the charges is not such as would entitle this Court to exercise its powers under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. I am unable to accede to this contention. In my opinion even if the Civil revisional jurisdiction of the Court is less wide than that on the Criminal side, the omission by the learned Munsif to specify the statements in respect of which he bases the charge of perjury against the three applicants and to mention the forged portion of the document amounts at least to a material irregularity. And the direction by the learned Munsif to the Magistrate, to convict the three applicants of any other offences that may be provied is clearly without jurisdiction, I have read the Judgment in the civil suit and I find that there are several statements made by the three applicants and the order of the Munsif does not specify in respect of which of the statements he wants the three applicants to be prosecuted for perjury. The document, i.e., the chitthi, purports to be signed by Rameshar Misir. The learned Munsif in his order does not say whether he considers the signature of Rameshar also to have been forged. I think that the applicants are entitled to know what are the statements in respect of which they are charged with perjury and which portion of the document is said to have been forged by them, and to object to their committal on a general charge embracing any and all the offences mentioned in the Indian Penal Code. The delay in taking the proceedings under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code has not also been explained. In a case, where steps under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, are to be taken,- it is highly desirable that they should be taken as soon as possible and not delayed so long as has been done in this case. For these reasons I allow the application and set aside the order of the learned Munsif, dated the 26th of February, 1916.


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