Skip to content


Har Gobind and 3 ors. Vs. State of Haryana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 19 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1979SC1760; 1979CriLJ1334; (1979)4SCC482; 1979(11)LC661(SC)
ActsCode of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 109, 467 and 476
AppellantHar Gobind and 3 ors.
RespondentState of Haryana
Excerpt:
.....court and also additional district judge in appeal held that will was forged - additional district judge filed complaint under section 467 read with section 109 of code against appellants - appellants challenged such order of additional district judge - court of additional district judge which filed complaint had not given any finding as to part played by appellants in execution of will - under provisions of section 476 of code it was incumbent on court filing complaint to record clear finding regarding exact offence which was committed by appellants - no such finding had been recorded by district judge - appeal allowed and order of additional district judge filing complaint set aside. - indian evidence act, 1872 section 3: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] custodial.....s. murtaza fazal ali, j.1. this appeal must succeed on a short point. by the order impugned the addl. district judge filed a complaint under section 467/109 against the two appellants. it appears that in a suit filed by the plaintiff basing his claim on a will executed by the testator the appellants are alleged to have been attesting witnesses and taken part in the execution of the will. the trial court of the sub judge as also the addl. district judge in appeal held that the will was not genuine and was a forged document. in fact, after going through the findings of the judgments in the suit it would appear that all that the courts really found was that the will was executed under suspicious circumstances and not that it was a down-right forgery. even so after issuing notice to the.....
Judgment:

S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.

1. This appeal must succeed on a short point. By the order impugned the Addl. District Judge filed a complaint under Section 467/109 against the two appellants. It appears that in a suit filed by the plaintiff basing his claim on a will executed by the testator the appellants are alleged to have been attesting witnesses and taken part in the execution of the will. The Trial Court of the Sub Judge as also the Addl. District Judge in appeal held that the will was not genuine and was a forged document. In fact, after going through the findings of the judgments in the suit it would appear that all that the Courts really found was that the will was executed under suspicious circumstances and not that it was a down-right forgery. Even so after issuing notice to the appellants the Court of the Addl. District Judge which filed the complaint has not at all given any finding as to the part played by the appellants in the execution of the will. Nor has he clarified as to how the appellants could be prosecuted under Section 467/109. Under the provisions of Section 476 Cr. PC it was incumbent on the Court filing the complaint to record a clear finding regarding the exact offence which was committed by the appellants. No such finding has been recorded by the District Judge. In absence of such a finding the order filing the complaint can not be supported in law. For these reasons the appeal is allowed and the order of the Addl. District Judge is set aside and the complaint filed by the District Judge is hereby quashed.


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