Skip to content


Nagendra Nath Chakravarty and anr. Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Civil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Reported inAIR1930Cal578
AppellantNagendra Nath Chakravarty and anr.
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- .....appeal from an order under section 476 by the munsif of amta. the petitioners are two in number, nagendra nath chakraverty and giribala devi. petitioner 2 brought a suit in the court of the munsif of amta and in support of her claim got a document produced through petitioner 1 which was found by the munsif to be a forged one. ha accordingly made a complaint under section 476 against the plaintiff giribala devi as well as against her witness nagendra nath ohakraverty who is the son of giribala. the learned judge on appeal has upheld the order of the munsif. as regards giribala devi, in our judgment, no case has been made out for our interference with the order of the courts below, she was the plaintiff in the suit, the document was produced on her behalf and she may be presumed to know.....
Judgment:

1. This Rule was issued under Section 115, Civil P.C., against an order passed by the Sessions Judge of Hooghly under Section 476-B, Criminal P.C., on appeal from an order under Section 476 by the Munsif of Amta. The petitioners are two in number, Nagendra Nath Chakraverty and Giribala Devi. Petitioner 2 brought a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Amta and in support of her claim got a document produced through petitioner 1 which was found by the Munsif to be a forged one. Ha accordingly made a complaint under Section 476 against the plaintiff Giribala Devi as well as against her witness Nagendra Nath Ohakraverty who is the son of Giribala. The learned Judge on appeal has upheld the order of the Munsif. As regards Giribala Devi, in our judgment, no case has been made out for our interference with the order of the Courts below, she was the plaintiff in the suit, the document was produced on her behalf and she may be presumed to know the nature of the document. Any point that may be urged in defence will undoubtedly be dealt with by the trial Magistrate. It is further urged on her behalf that she has filed an appeal against the judgment of the Munsif and therefore proceeding's under Section 476, Criminal P.C., should be postponed till the disposal of the appeal. That is not a matter which comas exactly under the provisions of Section 115, Civil P.C. The learned Judge says that when the Court has found a forged document used by a party before it, he is entitled to make a complaint and there is no reason why the complaint should be stayed till the final disposal of the appeal which may pass through more Courts than one. The result is that the Rule obtained by Giribala Davi is discharged.

2. As regards the petitioner Nagendra Nath Chakraverty the point is raised that he not being a party to the suit the Court has no jurisdiction to lodge a complaint against him under Section 476 read with Section 195, Criminal P.C., in view of the alteration in the law made by the Amending Act of 1923. We think that the question is of some importance and we should like to have the help of the Crown in this matter. We accordingly direct that the papers be sent to the Legal Remembrancer with a request to make it possible for him to appear before us by an advocate to show cause in this case on the ground stated above. Let this matter be placed before us as soon as the Legal Remembrancer has entered appearance. The order staying further proceedings in this matter will continue to be in force until the disposal of this Rule.


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