Skip to content


Kashi Shukal and ors. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All425; 36Ind.Cas.836
AppellantKashi Shukal and ors.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
.....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 he 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 thi and the direction by the learned munsif to the magistrate to convict the three applicants of any other..........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 16th february 1914 several months after an application was made by rameshar misir for sanction to posecute the present applicants on charges of perjury and forgery. the application it is said, was rejected on the 3rd 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.....
Judgment:

Rafique, J.

1. This is an application in revision from the order of the Munsif of Grorakhpur 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 its. 522 principal and interest on the basis of a chitthi or letter dated 16th 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 16th February 1914 Several months after an application was made by Rameshar Misir for sanction to posecute the present applicants on charges of perjury and forgery. The application it is said, was rejected on the 3rd 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 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 Code and of Bhagirath Shukul under Sections 193 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code He farther 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 he 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 Coda. 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 Mansif 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 proved 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 Mansif 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 in 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 475 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 February 1916.


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