Skip to content


Hari Lal Sarnakar Vs. Abhoy Charan Jha - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948Cal5
AppellantHari Lal Sarnakar
RespondentAbhoy Charan Jha
Excerpt:
- .....bahadur sing singhi and there was only one debt included in the award. the opposite party, abhoy charan jha, was a member of the board in question. at some time subsequent to the preparation of the award false entries were made in the order-sheets of the debt settlement board to indicate that an application had been made by the opposite party, abhoy charan jha, in respect of a debt by the petitioner to abhoy charan jha, and the original award was amended by the inclusion of this alleged debt of the petitioner to abhoy charan jha, and the date of the award was altered to 21.5.1941. thereafter the opposite party, abhoy charan jha, moved the certificate officer for execution of the award. the petitioner then came to know of this falsified award and moved the certificate officer in.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Lodge, J.

1. The material facts giving rise to this case are as follows. The present petitioner Harilal Sarnakar presented an application before the Debt Settlement Board in respect of a debt due from him to his landlord, Bahadur Sing Singhi. That application was transferred by The Sub-Divisional Officer to the Milki Debt Settlement Board for disposal and an award was made by that Debt Settlement Board on 21-2-1941. The only creditor mentioned in the award was the landlord Bahadur Sing Singhi and there was only one debt included in the award. The opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha, was a member of the Board in question. At some time subsequent to the preparation of The award false entries were made in the order-sheets of the Debt Settlement Board to indicate that an application had been made by the opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha, in respect of a debt by The petitioner to Abhoy Charan Jha, and the original award was amended by the inclusion of this alleged debt of the petitioner to Abhoy Charan Jha, and the date of the award was altered to 21.5.1941. Thereafter the opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha, moved the Certificate Officer for execution of the award. The petitioner then came to know of this falsified award and moved the Certificate Officer in the matter. The Certificate Officer directed the present petitioner to appeal to the Appellate Officer and the petitioner did so. The Appellate Officer held an enquiry in exercise of the powers conferred upon him Under Section 43 Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, went into a number of questions which were strictly not relevant to an appeal, and came to the conclusion that the order-sheet had been falsified and false entries had been made in it; that there had been no proper application by the opposite, party, Abhoy Charan Jha, to the Debt Settlement Board, and that the alteration of the award by the inclusion of the debt of the petitioner to Abhoy Charan Jha, was fraudulently made behind the back of the present petitioner. He accordingly allowed the appeal and modified the award by cancelling that part of the award which referred to the debt of the petitioner to Abhoy Charan Jha. Abbey Charan Jha then preferred an application in revision to the District Judge and presented the same to the Appellate Officer as required by Section 40A, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act. The application in revision was rejected, the District Judge taking much the same view of the facts as that taken by the Appellate Officer.

2. Thereafter an application was made to the Collector for permission to prosecute the opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha Under Section 54, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act, 1935 and a general permission was given by the Collector without any precise statement of the offence said to have been committed and without any indication whether the offence said to have been committed was an offence punishable Under Section 54(1)(a) or (b) or (c) or (d), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act.

3. Thereupon a petition of complaint was presented by the present petitioner against the opposite party, Abhoy Charan Jha.

4. Some evidence was recorded and the learned Magistrate then discharged the accused Under Section 253, Criminal P.C. He recorded a finding that the case made out against the accused did not come within the purview o Section 54(1)(a), Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act and that the offence said to have been committed might possibly be an offence punishable Under Section 193, Penal Code, but as the requirements of Section 195, Criminal P.C. had not been fulfilled he was not in a position to continue the prosecution on such a charge.

5. Against that order of discharge the Sessions Judge was moved, and the Sessions Judge rejected the application. It is against the order of the Sessions Judge that the present rule has been obtained.

6. From the order of the Appellate Officer it is by no means clear what exactly is the offence which the opposite party is said to have committed beyond the fact that he fraudulently obtained a false award from the Debt Settlement Board. After a careful consideration of all the allegations made I am unable to hold that there is any reason for supposing that an offence was committed Under Section 54(1)(a) or (b): and obviously Section 54(1)(c) and (d) have no application. Therefore the learned Magistrate was right in holding that ho offence Under Section 54, Bengal Agricultural Debtors Act seems to have been committed. On the other hand, if the allegations are true it is obvious that offences punishable under the Penal Code have been committed by the opposite party. But those offences are offences specified in Clauses (b) and (c) of Section 195 (1), Criminal P.C. Some offences were certainly committed, if the allegations are true, in relation to the proceedings before Certificate Officer and by a party to proceedings in the Court of the Certificate Officer. It seems to me clear that the offences which the opposite party obviously committed, if the statements are true, are offences which require the complaint of the Certificate Officer. It is suggested that he has also committed offences which do not require such a complaint. After careful consideration I am not convinced that any offence which does not require the complaint of the Certificate Officer has in fact been committed by the opposite party.

7. I think the learned Sessions Judge was right in the view he took, and no prosecution without such a complaint ought to be entertained.

8. In the result the Rule is discharged.


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